Kernel build utilities

[sidetone]

I said, I'm not. I'm implying that I'm focused on what FreeBSD does, which is why I'm on a FreeBSD forum. There's no expectation for me to know details about Linux's configurations, even if I used it in the past. I also have no need for that type of tool, except dependency checking. curses/ncurses will cause a headache and constant problems for people who have to adjust a lot to fix a minor change for a constantly current update. It would take away the finite resources that FreeBSD has, when it's simpler to edit the file. This way also allows me to save it as a file, instead of curses interfering with it. Also, making everything as automated as it can be, is for the Ubuntu user; FreeBSD users are expected to learn about their OS, not have automation for thousands of files and their endless configuration options. Other reasons were explained.

 

[tobik@]

Heck, I just learned even some Linux udev magic can come in quite handy, depending on your situation ... I had to access the serial console of my XEN server to get some network interface back up and running and had a hard time finding the correct module for my USB/RS-232 converter without checking Google (all networking was down due to the failed interface), ending up with kldload /boot/kernel/*.ko just to get this *?#%&)=ing* converter to work

It sounds like there's a missing entry in /etc/devd.conf for your USB/RS-232 converter. Normally the driver should have been loaded automatically. Maybe submit a bug/patch for this.

 

[tomxor]

Having tools to help with configuration doesn't automatically mean changing the config file format.

I think this kinda sums it up? obviously replacing manual configuration is not gona happen, i'm sure sidetone's preferences and concerns are shared by many, probably most, and replacing that simplicity and flexibility makes no sense.

Maybe the only nice way for this tool to exist would be as an optional and completely separate (port?). Instead of replacing configs maybe it can just generate them... Also I wonder if it's practical to infer "dependencies" from existing source without modification, or if some kind of extra annotation would be required, the former would be nice n' passive.

 

[zirias@]

This way also allows me to save it as a file, instead of curses interfering with it.

A Linux configuration is indeed one text file, too.

Also, making everything as automated as it can be, is for the Ubuntu user;

Hahahahaha. Never used that one, but I see where you come from ... so it's not 1337 enough unless you invested too much time without appropriate benefit, right?

FreeBSD users are expected to learn about their OS, not have automation for thousands of files and their endless configuration options.

Yep right, kind of reminds me of "watching shit scroll by makes me a Linux expert over night" statements from Gentoo users. Well, I develop software for a living, I know lots of operating systems, and more than a single one from "hacking" their source as well ... do you? If not, please kindly take a step back, thanks.

It sounds like there's a missing entry in /etc/devd.conf for your USB/RS-232 converter. Normally the driver should have been loaded automatically. Maybe submit a bug/patch for this.

Thanks a lot for this useful hint, I really thought automatic module loading was intentionally left out. Now I know where to look for it and I'll definitely do that.

 

[zirias@]

I think this kinda sums it up? obviously replacing manual configuration is not gona happen, i'm sure sidetone's preferences and concerns are shared by many, probably most, and replacing that simplicity and flexibility makes no sense.

Yes, of course, but as stated earlier, the Linux configuration is "just a text file" as well. It typically doesn't look nice (like with structure and comments) but of course it COULD, if anyone would bother hand-writing it

Maybe the only nice way for this tool to exist would be as an optional and completely separate (port?). Instead of replacing configs maybe it can just generate them... Also I wonder if it's practical to infer "dependencies" from existing source without modification, or if some kind of extra annotation would be required, the former would be nice n' passive.

Just some quick thoughts on this:

1. A port probably wouldn't do, because ...
2. trying to infer dependencies from the source would be complicated and error-prone. There should just be some nice and easy-to-write (-edit) metadata that actively enumerates them. "Done right" (TM), this shouldn't really bother kernel devs because the extra effort to maintain this data would be minimal.
3. and it wouldn't "replace" anything, I mentioned that before several times, but generating a config file is exactly what the Linux make {xyz}config utils do as well.

 

[sidetone]

Why don't you develop it, instead of complaining?

so it's not 1337 enough unless you invested too much time without appropriate benefit, right?

Did you miss where I said, it will conflict with the edited file? and it will be a hassle for developers to update constant rolling code.

 

[zirias@]

So, where exactly do I complain? And what are you doing here? And did you ever try to find out what I develop? Why don't you shut up instead of trying to kill any discussion?

edit: just to get that straight: You say you don't need what I'm suggesting -- that's fair and I don't have any objections about that. But please leave it at that. Others said they wouldn't want to use a menu-driven tool, but would value some dependency checking. That's a fair statement as well, and discussing is of course about opinions. Just please don't talk like your view is the only sensible one and stop assuming anyone not supporting your point of view is "ugly and stupid", like Linus does sometimes .... and just as a quick reminder: automation is in fact what most IT systems are about.

 

[sidetone]

Ubuntu is for you.

 

[zirias@]

No it isn't. But with your attitude, discussion forums obviously aren't for you.

 

[sidetone]

FreeBSD books epitomize that FreeBSD is a file edited operating system, with powerful abilities. Obviously putting a driven menu in, will hinder this. Secondly, this is a FreeBSD forum, not a Linux forum. Thirdly, you've ignored answers from several people, then keep continuing. Fourthly, you're the one who's getting upset, when I implied I'm at a FreeBSD forum, and not a Linux forum.

automation for thousands of files and their endless configuration options.

will be a strain on developers, when FreeBSD users take pride in learning how to configure their system to their needs.

Ubuntu is for you.

 

[zirias@]

FreeBSD books epitomize that FreeBSD is a file edited operating system, with powerful abilities.

Oh really? So you must hate bsdinstall.

Obviously putting a driven menu in, will hinder this.

No, it won't.

Secondly, this is a FreeBSD forum, not a Linux forum.

Right, that's why this whole thread came from some Linux-centric publication talking about FreeBSD documentation. But hey, your world is an island, isn't that nice?

Thirdly, you've ignored answers from several people, then keep continuing.

No, I didn't.

Fourthly, you're the one who's getting upset, when I implied I'm at a FreeBSD forum, and not a Linux forum.

No, I'm just and only upset about you for ...

Ubuntu is for you.

... obviously being a total jerk.

 

[sidetone]

The simplicity of the FreeBSD kernel configuration compared to that of Linux is something I find pretty amazing. Think about it: is it really easier to build a minimal kernel by digging through a dozen nested menus and hitting the spacebar 100 times, than by just opening your editor of choice and deleting some lines?

have automation for thousands of files and their endless configuration options.

, which is a strain on developers for rolling sources, when there's hundreds of options that can be viewed using grep. and there's lacking simplicity, when a menu is going to conflict with it, unless there's an overload of complexity.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and it's you who got testy. I'm at a FREEBSD Forum, where there isn't an expectancy to know about Linux old-config. You belong in Ubuntu.

 

[zirias@]

This is getting utterly ridiculous, therefore I'm ignoring your posts on this thread from now on. have fun.

 

[sidetone]

Good.

 

[SirDice]

I suggest everybody calms down and takes a chill pill. Please read rules #2, #3 and #4: Thread 38922/

Thread closed as it's going nowhere fast.