NetBSD-Bugs archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: kern/41668 (MONOLITHIC should probably also be included in HEAD builds)

The following reply was made to PR kern/41668; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
Subject: Re: kern/41668 (MONOLITHIC should probably also be included in HEAD 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:13:04 +0700

     Date:        Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:20:04 +0000 (UTC)
     From:        Matthias Scheler <>
     Message-ID:  <>
   |  > > The MONOLITHIC is now built by default and distributed with snapshots.
   |  > > This should probably be undone after the release of NetBSD 6.0 if the
   |  > > problems with the module framework have been fixed in the meantime.
   |  > 
   |  > This should definitely be undone.
   |  I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
 Yes, definitely - what's more, aside from some build time consumed in
 making an extra kernel, I cannot even imagine how having MONOLITITHIC
 as well as a (modular) GENERIC can possibly harm anyone - all that does
 is give users an easy choice of which kernel they prefer, and how that
 can possibly be considered as "confusing the needs of the producers with
 the needs of the consumers" is beyond my comprehension.
 If the discussion was about the exact opposite, I could see where that
 comment could be relevant - that is, if the developers wanted to maintain
 just one kernel (the modular one, or the monolithic one), then you could
 say that would be putting the needs of the producers above the needs of the
 consumers, but in adding one???
 The only possible drawback to including MONOLITHIC (aside from build time
 and release size) is that the end users wouldn't be forced to run a
 modular kernel (or recompile from source) which might just upset some
 people's ideas of what the users are supposed to be wanting when some of
 them (perhaps many of them) actually select the MONOLITHIC kernel, despite
 all the (bogus) assurances that all end users really want modular kernels.
 Personally, I'd prefer if the default kernel for 6.0 was switched back
 plus the obvious related changes) - I suspect that will end up causing
 far less problems after 6.0 is released and starts being used by real
 end users (note all random problems people have been having with modules
 in current - where the users are supposed to have some understanding of
 the correct procedures, and how to deal with problems, then imagine what
 will happen with the genuine end users who only run release versions)
 Note: I totally support having modules as part of NetBSD, and in being able
 to build and run modular kernels - there's no question that there is a
 community for whom that's the best way to operate.   And with that, I also
 support having the GENERIC kernel being a modular kernel in current - since
 the modular system is new, that's the best way to cause it to be used, so
 the problems can be found and corrected.   So, I'd do the above mv's on the
 netbsd_6 branch after it is created - before 6.0 alpha releases start being
 created, ie: first thing after the branch is created - either that or on
 current just before the branch, then undo it again on current (6.99.*)
 immediately after the branch.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index