Re: Kernel configuration and documentatiton

Craig Metz (
Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:46:34 -0500

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.950725082343.6700B-100000@vci>, Johan Myreen writes:
>While I'm on the subject: Couldn't the configuration be simplified a bit
>by skipping some of the options? Every removed question would make life a
>little bit easier for the beginner. For example:
>CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF - ELF is apparently becoming the primary executable
> format Real Soon Now. Couldn't this question be
> skipped?
>CONFIG_SYSVIPC - Would it hurt if SYSV IPC was always included? You
> never know when you are going to run a program that
> requires this. It would also be helpful to software
> producers if they could get a definite answer to
> the question whether Linux supports SYSV IPC or
> not, instead of "well, it depends..."
>CONFIG_EXT_FS - Is anybody using this anymore? Should anybody be
> using this anymore?
>CONFIG_XIA_FS - Hmm? This might still be in use...
>CONFIG_PROC_FS - Is there any reason for not having the proc file
> system? Doesn't a lot of stuff depend on /proc?
>CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE - What's the status of the "new" IDE driver? Is it
> stable enough so the old one could be skipped,
> along with the confusing questions regarding
> primary and secondary interfaces?
>Perhaps there could be a supplementary "experts" configuration method, so
>that, for example, those who hate SYSV IPC could still disable it?

Anything that makes it more difficult to strip out drivers is
a Bad Thing in my book. I have 386s with 4MB of memory running as network
servers. They need slim kernels.

What I *would* like to see is something like the BSD kernel
configuration in which you have a file that lists the drivers and other
features you want in your kernel and any configuration paramaters you
need. This way, you don't have to answer sixty yes/no questions every
time you download a new version of the kernel.