INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC

[Doug Barton]

On 01/12/10 16:43, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <4B4D109A.5060500 at FreeBSD.org>
>             Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> : On 1/10/2010 8:02 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > In message: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001110348100.92627 at serrsnyy.serrofq.bet>
> : >             Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> : > : On Sun, 10 Jan 2010, Warner Losh wrote:
> : > : 
> : > : > Author: imp
> : > : > Date: Sun Jan 10 17:44:22 2010
> : > : > New Revision: 202019
> : > : > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/202019
> : > : >
> : > : > Log:
> : > : >  Add INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC on all non-embedded platforms.
> : > : 
> : > : Thanks for doing this, however the comment about how to include the
> : > : whole file (including the comments) were not included. Do I need to do
> : > : this part of it myself? No problem if so, I just want to be sure to
> : > : get it done in time to MFC it before the freeze for 7.3-release.
> : > 
> : > In general, we don't put big comments like that in the config files,
> : > preferring to leave them to NOTES.  I was just following that
> : > convention...
> : 
> : Understood, however given that there is plenty of room for confusion on
> : this point because the default is NOT to include the comments I think
> : that some explanation is justified. My original text was:
> : 
> : # Store the plain version of the configuration file in the kernel itself.
> : # To store the entire file, including comments, put this in /etc/src.conf:
> : # CONFIGARGS=	-C
> : # See config(8) for more details.
> : 
> : I'm open to suggestions on shrinking it, but I do think some sort of
> : explanation is warranted.
> 
> I'm not sure I see where there's confusion possible here, let alone
> plenty of room for it.  Do you think you can describe what confusion
> is possible here?

I think that most users would expect that the actual config file is
included, with the comments; as opposed to the stripped down version
with just the actual lines of configuration information that is actually
stored by default. Not only do I think it's obvious that this is what
users would think, this exact issue came up in the discussion on
-current in December.

To address the other responses, Tom, sorry, your suggested text doesn't
address my concern. John, I don't think that users would somehow
magically know to look in NOTES for more information about an option
that is already in GENERIC.

In the interests of bringing this to a close:
# Store the plain version of the configuration file in the kernel itself.
# For information on extraction, and storing the comments also, see
config(8).

There are plenty of comments in GENERIC that are longer/more substantial
than that, and let's be serious for a minute, IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY.
I'm sorry if adding a comment that is slightly larger than usual to a
kernel config file defiles someone's view of the purity of all things
kernel, but let's try to take a step back and realize that NOT making
things so cryptic might actually benefit the users.

And yes, if you can't already tell, my patience is at an end for this. I
"get" why it needs to move to GENERIC instead of DEFAULTS, especially
since that's where I wanted to put it in the first place. But
specifically to Warner, if you had in mind to do something other than to
just move what I did to GENERIC you should have said that, and we could
have avoided this whole stupid discussion. And generally, let's forget
for a second that y'all are annoying the crap out of me, how many other
people are you discouraging from participation because an issue as
simple as this one is generating such an overwhelmingly out of
proportion response?

Unless someone objects to the TEXT of the comment I proposed in the next
24 hours I'll be committing it after that.


Doug

-- 

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

	Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
			-- Pablo Picasso