|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Brooks Davis
*nix forums addict
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 97
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:39 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:39:31PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
| Quote: | Just musing on an idea here:
I've been thinking for a while now about trying to write a tool to make
kernel configuration easier, sort of a "make config" (as in ports) for
the kernel, similar to what's available on some of the Linux distros.
Ideally, such a tool would be capable of automatically adapting itself
to handle and present as choices, in an orderly and logical fashion,
whatever devices, options, etc. were currently available, as defined by
the files in /sys/conf et al.
The major hurdle to overcome, it appears to me, is that the scheme
currently employed to describe the available devices, options, etc.
does not lend itself very easily at all to any kind of automatic
parsing or other manipulations. Determining dependencies between
components programmatically, for one thing, seems well near impossible.
The NOTES files, in their current form, make even finding the comment
associated with a particular option or device extremely difficult, if
not impossible.
Has this ever come up for discussion before? Now that we have rcNG,
with its explicit declarations of dependencies, has any thought been
given to doing something similar with kernel configuration files?
Something still human-readable, yet more orderly and systematic, easier
for a machine to interpret, present and verify?
|
There have been previous discussions. They should be visiable in the
archives if you can find the magic search strings.
| Quote: | A dependable tool offering a menu-driven means of configuring the
kernel, ensuring proper config file syntax, dependency handling,
prevention of incompatible options, etc. -- as well as online
documentation, advice, suggestions and warnings, plus perhaps a nice
set of default selections -- would be a very nice addition to the
system. But to bring it about, obviously a major reworking of the
current system of kernel configuration files would be required.
|
You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from my
cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share this
viewpoint. All my experiences with the linux visual kernel config tool
have been annoying and I've got friends with more expierence with it
that have much less kind things to say.
That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden,
an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling
dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the configured
set of devices could be useful.
There is a valid question of what a depenency means. For instance, you
can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null pointer
derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a module, should
you have to compile it in?
-- Brooks
--
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Max Laier
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:39 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On Wednesday 21 July 2004 03:03, Brooks Davis wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:39:31PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
Just musing on an idea here:
I've been thinking for a while now about trying to write a tool to make
kernel configuration easier, sort of a "make config" (as in ports) for
the kernel, similar to what's available on some of the Linux distros.
Ideally, such a tool would be capable of automatically adapting itself
to handle and present as choices, in an orderly and logical fashion,
whatever devices, options, etc. were currently available, as defined by
the files in /sys/conf et al.
The major hurdle to overcome, it appears to me, is that the scheme
currently employed to describe the available devices, options, etc.
does not lend itself very easily at all to any kind of automatic
parsing or other manipulations. Determining dependencies between
components programmatically, for one thing, seems well near impossible.
The NOTES files, in their current form, make even finding the comment
associated with a particular option or device extremely difficult, if
not impossible.
Has this ever come up for discussion before? Now that we have rcNG,
with its explicit declarations of dependencies, has any thought been
given to doing something similar with kernel configuration files?
Something still human-readable, yet more orderly and systematic, easier
for a machine to interpret, present and verify?
There have been previous discussions. They should be visiable in the
archives if you can find the magic search strings.
A dependable tool offering a menu-driven means of configuring the
kernel, ensuring proper config file syntax, dependency handling,
prevention of incompatible options, etc. -- as well as online
documentation, advice, suggestions and warnings, plus perhaps a nice
set of default selections -- would be a very nice addition to the
system. But to bring it about, obviously a major reworking of the
current system of kernel configuration files would be required.
You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from my
cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share this
viewpoint. All my experiences with the linux visual kernel config tool
have been annoying and I've got friends with more expierence with it
that have much less kind things to say.
|
Add me to the list. And this realates to sys/conf/* as well (respondig to the
re-reply). Especially developers prefer *clean*, *simple* config files and I
(personally) would really really hate to twiddle with some insane XML just to
add something to the build!
| Quote: | That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden,
an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling
dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the configured
set of devices could be useful.
|
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/todo.html has a "Desired features"-item
saying: "Revised kld build infrastructure", which will pretty much interfere
with this. You might want to contact with the current owner (peter@) and hear
what he has to say. Other than that, I'd welcome a somewhat enriched config
environment as long as it is done reasonable and makes the job easier! And
please: NO XML!
| Quote: | There is a valid question of what a depenency means. For instance, you
can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null pointer
derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a module, should
you have to compile it in?
|
There should be levels of dependencies ... i.e. the TBD config-tool would
(strongly) suggest that you build-in lo(4) into an "options INET" kernel, but
should not stop you to do else.
--
/"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conrad J. Sabatier
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 142
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:22 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On 21-Jul-2004 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
[snip]
| Quote: | Has this ever come up for discussion before? Now that we have rcNG,
with its explicit declarations of dependencies, has any thought been
given to doing something similar with kernel configuration files?
Something still human-readable, yet more orderly and systematic,
easier for a machine to interpret, present and verify?
|
Just a note of clarification here: the use of the term "kernel
configuration files" in the above paragraph refers to the entire set of
files residing under /sys/conf and friends, not the user's kernel
config.
Just wanted to make sure. :-)
--
Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conrad J. Sabatier
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 142
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:37 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On 21-Jul-2004 Brooks Davis wrote:
| Quote: | You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from
my cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share
this viewpoint. All my experiences with the linux visual kernel
config tool have been annoying and I've got friends with more
expierence with it that have much less kind things to say.
|
Well, the idea is not to replace the current use of a single, flat
kernel config file, only to ease its creation. The end result would
be essentially the same, although with a slightly different arrangement
of items, of course.
| Quote: | That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden,
an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling
dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the
configured set of devices could be useful.
|
Yes, I think it's an interesting area for exploration.
| Quote: | There is a valid question of what a depenency means. For instance,
you can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null
pointer derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a
module, should you have to compile it in?
|
Hmm, good point. This will obviously require some careful thinking.
As I told Julian Elischer just now in another (private) reply, I don't
have even the first sketches of such a reorganization on the drawing
board. I was curious to see how such an idea would be received first.
If there's a lot of resistance (which I could certainly understand), I
won't even bother. But if there's an interest...I'd certainly be
willing to invest some time in it and see what I could cook up.
So far, no one's yelling "blasphemer!" or anything. But then it's
still early. We'll see. :-)
--
Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conrad J. Sabatier
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 142
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:53 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On 21-Jul-2004 Max Laier wrote:
| Quote: | On Wednesday 21 July 2004 03:03, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:39:31PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
[snip]
A dependable tool offering a menu-driven means of configuring the
kernel, ensuring proper config file syntax, dependency handling,
prevention of incompatible options, etc. -- as well as online
documentation, advice, suggestions and warnings, plus perhaps a
nice set of default selections -- would be a very nice addition to
the system. But to bring it about, obviously a major reworking of
the current system of kernel configuration files would be required.
You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from
my cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share
this viewpoint. All my experiences with the linux visual kernel
config tool have been annoying and I've got friends with more
expierence with it that have much less kind things to say.
Add me to the list. And this realates to sys/conf/* as well
(respondig to the re-reply). Especially developers prefer *clean*,
*simple* config files and I (personally) would really really hate to
twiddle with some insane XML just to add something to the build!
|
Oh, agreed, definitely. Wasn't even thinking XML (yuck!). :-)
Basically, I'm just thinking of a layout which, in the simplest,
cleanest manner possible, would allow a "make config"-like tool to
extract the information it needed, so options could be presented to
the user along with their descriptions, if so desired. I don't have a
clear-cut idea just yet of how this might be done, to be honest. :-)
| Quote: | That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden,
an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling
dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the
configured set of devices could be useful.
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/todo.html has a "Desired
features"-item saying: "Revised kld build infrastructure", which
will pretty much interfere with this. You might want to contact with
the current owner (peter@) and hear what he has to say.
|
Thanks for the pointer. I'll check into that.
| Quote: | Other than that, I'd welcome a somewhat enriched config
environment as long as it is done reasonable and makes the job
easier! And please: NO XML!
|
Cool. And not to worry. No XML. :-)
| Quote: | There is a valid question of what a depenency means. For instance,
you can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null
pointer derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a
module, should you have to compile it in?
There should be levels of dependencies ... i.e. the TBD config-tool
would (strongly) suggest that you build-in lo(4) into an "options
INET" kernel, but should not stop you to do else.
|
Exactly. That's the sort of thing I had in mind.
I realize this is a fairly large undertaking, and hearing that others
have already made attempts but have yet to produce anything makes me a
little uncertain about it all, but I do think it's something worth
exploring. And it'll keep me off the streets and out of trouble for a
good while, too. :-)
If I manage to come up with anything reasonable, you'll hear about it
here.
Incidentally, is anyone else's mail to freebsd-config bouncing?
=======BOUNCE MESSAGE======
This is the Postfix program at host hub.freebsd.org.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.
The Postfix program
<freebsd-config@freebsd.org>: Command died with status 1:
"/usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman post freebsd-config". Command
output: post
script, list not found: freebsd-config
--
Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murray Taylor
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:01 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 11:53, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
| Quote: | On 21-Jul-2004 Max Laier wrote:
On Wednesday 21 July 2004 03:03, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:39:31PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
[snip]
A dependable tool offering a menu-driven means of configuring the
kernel, ensuring proper config file syntax, dependency handling,
prevention of incompatible options, etc. -- as well as online
documentation, advice, suggestions and warnings, plus perhaps a
nice set of default selections -- would be a very nice addition to
the system. But to bring it about, obviously a major reworking of
the current system of kernel configuration files would be required.
You can have my simple flat file kernel config when you pry it from
my cold, dead hands and I know a number of other develoeprs share
this viewpoint. All my experiences with the linux visual kernel
config tool have been annoying and I've got friends with more
expierence with it that have much less kind things to say.
Add me to the list. And this realates to sys/conf/* as well
(respondig to the re-reply). Especially developers prefer *clean*,
*simple* config files and I (personally) would really really hate to
twiddle with some insane XML just to add something to the build!
Oh, agreed, definitely. Wasn't even thinking XML (yuck!). :-)
Basically, I'm just thinking of a layout which, in the simplest,
cleanest manner possible, would allow a "make config"-like tool to
extract the information it needed, so options could be presented to
the user along with their descriptions, if so desired. I don't have a
clear-cut idea just yet of how this might be done, to be honest. :-)
That said, so long as it doesn't impose too much developer burden,
an improved set of backend files that did a better job of handling
dependencies and knew which options where relevent given the
configured set of devices could be useful.
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/todo.html has a "Desired
features"-item saying: "Revised kld build infrastructure", which
will pretty much interfere with this. You might want to contact with
the current owner (peter@) and hear what he has to say.
Thanks for the pointer. I'll check into that.
Other than that, I'd welcome a somewhat enriched config
environment as long as it is done reasonable and makes the job
easier! And please: NO XML!
Cool. And not to worry. No XML. :-)
There is a valid question of what a depenency means. For instance,
you can't really have IP networking without lo(4) (there's a null
pointer derefrence if you try), but since you can load it as a
module, should you have to compile it in?
There should be levels of dependencies ... i.e. the TBD config-tool
would (strongly) suggest that you build-in lo(4) into an "options
INET" kernel, but should not stop you to do else.
Exactly. That's the sort of thing I had in mind.
I realize this is a fairly large undertaking, and hearing that others
have already made attempts but have yet to produce anything makes me a
little uncertain about it all, but I do think it's something worth
exploring. And it'll keep me off the streets and out of trouble for a
good while, too. :-)
If I manage to come up with anything reasonable, you'll hear about it
here.
|
As an initial starting point for 'preloading' any menubased kernel
configurator, could the file /var/run/dmesg.boot be usefully parsed as
a list of 'this is what is actually installed in this box, what else do
you want to add?" Of course any output developed on a run of the
configurator would/could/should be scanned as well to include answers to
the question.."What did I include last time?"
0.02c
--
Murray Taylor
Special Projects Engineer
---------------------------------
Bytecraft Systems & Entertainment
P: +61 3 8710 2555
F: +61 3 8710 2599
D: +61 3 9238 4275
M: +61 417 319 256
E: murraytaylor@bytecraftsystems.com
or visit us on the web
http://www.bytecraftsystems.com
http://www.bytecraftentertainment.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted in this e-mail is for the exclusive
use of the intended addressee and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission,
dissemination or other use of it, or the taking of any action
in reliance upon this information by persons and/or entities
other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please inform the sender and/or
addressee immediately and delete the material.
E-mails may not be secure, may contain computer viruses and
may be corrupted in transmission. Please carefully check this
e-mail (and any attachment) accordingly. No warranties are
given and no liability is accepted for any loss or damage
caused by such matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------
****************************************************************
This Email has been scanned for Viruses by MailMarshal.
****************************************************************
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Avleen Vig
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:43 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:39:31PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
| Quote: | Just musing on an idea here:
I've been thinking for a while now about trying to write a tool to make
kernel configuration easier, sort of a "make config" (as in ports) for
the kernel, similar to what's available on some of the Linux distros.
|
I've read over the other posts in this thread, but I cannot say I think
this is a good idea. In fact, I think it's a very bad idea, but with
very good intentions. Here's why..
I'm a strong proponent of user education. The FreeBSD handbook is one of
the best education tools for someone who wants to use FreeBSD, right
from beginner to more advanced levels.
A "config tool", while useful for beginners, would quickly result is
those beginners not learning about building a kernel themselves, copying
GENERIC to `hostname -s | tr "[:lower:]" "[:upper:]"`, editing it,
learning what is in LINT, remembering to look through there, etc.
This process teaches users a lot about how a BSD kernel is configured,
what options are availible, and where to look for more options.
The end result would be more people building kernels themselves, but not
knowing what is actually happening, or what more is possible. It would
mean less educated users, and I don't think that is somewhere any
organization needs to go (look at what happened to the average Microsoft
user's IQ level, after people stopped using DOS and started having
machines do the work for them).
Like I said, I think your intentions are good, but I have concerns about
the suggested solution.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Devon H. O'Dell
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:52 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
Avleen Vig wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:39:31PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
Just musing on an idea here:
I've been thinking for a while now about trying to write a tool to make
kernel configuration easier, sort of a "make config" (as in ports) for
the kernel, similar to what's available on some of the Linux distros.
I've read over the other posts in this thread, but I cannot say I think
this is a good idea. In fact, I think it's a very bad idea, but with
very good intentions. Here's why..
I'm a strong proponent of user education. The FreeBSD handbook is one of
the best education tools for someone who wants to use FreeBSD, right
from beginner to more advanced levels.
A "config tool", while useful for beginners, would quickly result is
those beginners not learning about building a kernel themselves, copying
GENERIC to `hostname -s | tr "[:lower:]" "[:upper:]"`, editing it,
learning what is in LINT, remembering to look through there, etc.
This process teaches users a lot about how a BSD kernel is configured,
what options are availible, and where to look for more options.
The end result would be more people building kernels themselves, but not
knowing what is actually happening, or what more is possible. It would
mean less educated users, and I don't think that is somewhere any
organization needs to go (look at what happened to the average Microsoft
user's IQ level, after people stopped using DOS and started having
machines do the work for them).
Like I said, I think your intentions are good, but I have concerns about
the suggested solution.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
|
I wholly disagree. I think using an excuse ``people will let everything
else do the work for them and nobody will ever learn'' to discourage the
development of automation tools is very poor. Try applying that argument
to any utility that you use. You'd have to write your own bloody
operating system because ``learning's in your best interest''.
I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came up
with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in solutions,
not suggestions.
--Devon
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M. Warner Losh
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Mar 2002
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:12 pm Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
In message: <1090393301.2180.77.camel@wstaylorm.dand06.au.bytecraft.au.com>
Murray Taylor <murraytaylor@bytecraftsystems.com> writes:
: As an initial starting point for 'preloading' any menubased kernel
: configurator, could the file /var/run/dmesg.boot be usefully parsed as
: a list of 'this is what is actually installed in this box, what else do
: you want to add?" Of course any output developed on a run of the
: configurator would/could/should be scanned as well to include answers to
: the question.."What did I include last time?"
if devd could map, somehow, the pnp info into drivers to load, that
would solve this problem.
warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conrad J. Sabatier
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 142
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:49 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On 21-Jul-2004 Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
| Quote: | I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came
up with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in
solutions, not suggestions.
|
Agreed. And the original proponent of the idea was me. I just wanted
to see if there was any willingness to even consider something like
this before I went and did a lot of work for nothing.
Seems the general concensus is that most people are OK with the idea,
depending on the implementation.
I'll be quiet now until/unless I can actually come up with something.
:-)
--
Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Pressey
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:32 pm Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:39:31 -0500 (CDT)
"Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Just musing on an idea here:
I've been thinking for a while now about trying to write a tool to
make kernel configuration easier, sort of a "make config" (as in
ports) for the kernel, similar to what's available on some of the
Linux distros.
Ideally, such a tool would be capable of automatically adapting itself
to handle and present as choices, in an orderly and logical fashion,
whatever devices, options, etc. were currently available, as defined
by the files in /sys/conf et al.
|
Hi,
I gave this a brief shot on DragonFly with not much luck, but maybe some
insight - here's my experience.
The kernel config file should probably be replaced by a Makefile.
This way, the user can say something like:
MYKERNEL: device_i_want another_device_i_want ...
...
And of course somewhere else (probably in an included Makefile) the
dependencies would be specified a la
device_i_want: another_device_you_also_need_for_it
...
So, you'd never get a "doomed" kernel config that starts compiling but
chokes halfway through the build, because any needed devices would be
brought in automatically.
That's the easy part. The hard part is discovering the dependencies.
If you want to discover them automatically by looking through the kernel
source code files - all I can say is, good luck! You'll either need a
really, really smart relation-mining program, or more disciplined source
code organization, or both.
Alternatively, you could ascertain a set of dependencies manually
(many of them are noted in GENERIC, LINT, NOTES, etc,) but then you'd
also have to maintain that set when they change in the future. I'm not
so sure that's much of a drawback (since currently src/sys/conf/files
has to undergo that sort of maintenance anyway,) but it's less big of a
win than having it all nicely, automatically generated from the inherent
structure of the kernel.
| Quote: | The major hurdle to overcome, it appears to me, is that the scheme
currently employed to describe the available devices, options, etc.
does not lend itself very easily at all to any kind of automatic
parsing or other manipulations. Determining dependencies between
components programmatically, for one thing, seems well near
impossible.
|
Precisely the conclusion I came to as well.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jake Hamby
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:50 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
| Quote: | On 21-Jul-2004 Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came
up with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in
solutions, not suggestions.
Agreed. And the original proponent of the idea was me. I just wanted
to see if there was any willingness to even consider something like
this before I went and did a lot of work for nothing.
Seems the general concensus is that most people are OK with the idea,
depending on the implementation.
I'll be quiet now until/unless I can actually come up with something.
|
If you are looking to improve the current build process, here's an idea
someone could implement that would save a lot of people a lot of time...
My biggest annoyance with building the kernel, compared to Linux, is
that it insists on building all of the possible kernel modules, even
though I only want to build the ones that make sense for my hardware.
In Linux, despite the drawbacks of the menu-based config, it is nice
being able to easily specify Yes, Module, or No for most options.
The least intrusive approach would probably be to add a second config
file (e.g. "MYKERNEL.modules") which would contain only the names of the
modules to build in some make-friendly format. You could then modify
config( to automatically copy this file, if it exists, to the object
directory where it would be included by the appropriate Makefile. If no
..modules file exists, then it would continue the current behavior of
building all possible modules.
--
Jake Hamby
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Jeremy
*nix forums addict
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 77
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:03 am Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
On Fri, 2004-Jul-23 20:50:01 -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
| Quote: | My biggest annoyance with building the kernel, compared to Linux, is
that it insists on building all of the possible kernel modules, even
though I only want to build the ones that make sense for my hardware.
|
I think you want the following:
# MODULES_OVERRIDE can be used to limit modules built to a specific list.
....
#makeoptions MODULES_OVERRIDE="linux sound/snd sound/pcm sound/driver/maestro3"
Peter
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jake Hamby
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:21 pm Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
M. Warner Losh wrote:
| Quote: |
What's wrong with adding:
makeoptions MODULES_OVERRIDE="a b c"
to your config file? It is already supported.
|
Nothing, I just didn't know about it! Thanks to all who replied with
the answer...
-Jake
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M. Warner Losh
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Mar 2002
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:01 pm Post subject:
Re: "Next Generation" kernel configuration?
|
|
|
In message: <4101DC69.9030309@anobject.com>
Jake Hamby <jhamby@anobject.com> writes:
: Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
: > On 21-Jul-2004 Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
: >
: >
: >>I'm sure this will become another bikeshed, so I suggest whoever came
: >>up with the idea to put up or shut up. People are interested in
: >>solutions, not suggestions.
: >
: >
: > Agreed. And the original proponent of the idea was me. I just wanted
: > to see if there was any willingness to even consider something like
: > this before I went and did a lot of work for nothing.
: >
: > Seems the general concensus is that most people are OK with the idea,
: > depending on the implementation.
: >
: > I'll be quiet now until/unless I can actually come up with something.
: >
:
: If you are looking to improve the current build process, here's an idea
: someone could implement that would save a lot of people a lot of time...
:
: My biggest annoyance with building the kernel, compared to Linux, is
: that it insists on building all of the possible kernel modules, even
: though I only want to build the ones that make sense for my hardware.
: In Linux, despite the drawbacks of the menu-based config, it is nice
: being able to easily specify Yes, Module, or No for most options.
:
: The least intrusive approach would probably be to add a second config
: file (e.g. "MYKERNEL.modules") which would contain only the names of the
: modules to build in some make-friendly format. You could then modify
: config( to automatically copy this file, if it exists, to the object
: directory where it would be included by the appropriate Makefile. If no
: .modules file exists, then it would continue the current behavior of
: building all possible modules.
What's wrong with adding:
makeoptions MODULES_OVERRIDE="a b c"
to your config file? It is already supported.
Warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:31 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Bankruptcy | Watch Anime Online | Mobile Phone | Advertising | Customer services
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
*nix
»
BSD
»
FreeBSD
»
mail-lists
»
Configuration
