On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Masao Uebayashi wrote:

quoted text
> I've found that the difficulty of understanding config(5) is due to its
> flexibility; it can do one thing in many ways.  You can define a collection
> of sources with define, defflag, device, defpseudo{,dev}, devfs.  OTOH you
> can only write dependency on attributes (define).  Another example is, you
> can write interface with define, device, defpseudodev.
> 
> I'd propose to make a rule to simplify things (at the cost of a little
> redundancy of config(5) files).

Allright.  I have to ask:

If the plan is to go to a dynamically probed system with loadable modules, 
why keep config around at all?  It's only useful for custom kernels.  Why 
is it useful to give config a facelift instead of doing away with it 
entirely?

Eduardo