docs/87445: comments for improvement of handbook/kernelconfig-config.html

[Marc Fonvieille]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 05:58:37AM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> 
> That is my most hated section of all.  Lemmie try to explain my
> peeves with this chapter:
> 
> o It's a major (and I mean MAJOR) nightmare to deal with keeping
>   in sync with reality.
> 
> o There are several things with regards to kernel's not fully
>   discussed.  For instance, look at the differences between
>   the way devices are listed for more archs then just i386.
> 
> o This section should discuss some of the basic options which
>   effect the building of kernels.
> 
> o This chapter should be merged with cutting edge and upgraded
>   to have an upgrading section.  I think it's stupid to have
>   them separate when many of the aspects criss cross virtually.
> 
> o I HATE HATE HATE the discussion on monolithic/modular.  Awhile
>   ago (months/years?) it discussed doing a kernel rebuild in
>   relation to SunOS kernels.  I'm glad that's gone.  But in many
>   cases you don't need a custom kernel anymore.  "rites of passage"
>   my butt.  Yea, it's something an admin should know, but I
>   think the discussion is way out of hand here.
>

I think you're right.  Nowadays building a custom kernel is for:

- experimented (non lazy?) admins/users
- embedded or old hardware

With the amount of RAM in todays boxes, the fact quite everything exist
as a module, the kernelconfig section should be part of cutting-edge.
We should only mention "kldload foo" in various places we talk about
kernel/driver support for a particular feature.  One advantage of just
mentioning "kldload foo" is that it's arch/release/whatever independant
(most of time).

> o I'm not dealing well with this 4.X/5.X/6.X stuff.  It seems
>   that RE@ is going to drop 5.X after 5.5, and 4.X is virtually
>   gone.  Not from production environments, but a lot of developers
>   I *THINK* aren't paying attention to it.
> 
> o Blah.  I'm tired.
> 
> I'm also finding myself with an urge to jump back into FreeBSD
> and complete a large project.  This, and disposing of the
> FAQ are just two things I'm thinking about.  Some day people
> will wake up to some major change in the docs, and the
> FAQ may be gone or at least "quick reading" clean.  Or perhaps
> 4.X will be knifed from the handbook.  And most likely, the
> only people who will expect it coming will be those that aren't
> going to stand in my way.[1]  :)
> 
> [1]: Please don't take that as if it's rude, I'm actually
>      joking around with it.  Cause I know that if someone
>      tried that, well, to core && doceng they'd be explaining.
> 

If you add to the tree the "famous ghost" called "dynamic built FAQ at
the end of each Handbook chapter", no one will object :)

Marc