Port-i386 archive

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

Re: GENERIC and INSTALL kernels

> Not at all. I am just concerned by a GENERIC kernel that can bring the
> system in a non-easily recoverable state if it fails getting modules,

Why should the GENERIC be so? Why not RESCUE kernel like /rescue?

> and there are multiple situations where this can happen: failed update,

Is there any difference between failures on updating kernel and
updating modules?

The only problem on current module(7) is there is no way
to specify alternative module path when new module files have problem.

> buggy PXE or network, missing files in an NFS share, etc.

I'm suggesting to put FFS and NFS into GENERIC.

> self-sufficient => can boot up to a point where we have acceptable
> access to tools so we can fix the system. Up to single user seems
> reasonable.

Why should GENERIC be self-sufficient?

> They have to share as much code as possible;

Possible, but not necessary.
No problem to have different config for different purpose.

> GENERIC is probably the
> kernel that will be the most widely tested, including on recent
> hardware.

BTW, if module(7) is in GENERIC, it will be tested as well.

Anyway I doubt most NetBSD geeks who claim MODULAR is not necessary
are using GENERIC binaries ;-p

> The more we deviate from it, the more we risk of proposing a
> non-working INSTALL kernel. INSTALL_FLOPPY, for example, did not have
> acpi support compiled in.

INSTALL kernel should be different from GENERIC.
What's the problem using MONOLITHIC for INSTALL and leave GENERIC as is?

Is it really more worth to make GENERIC monolithic to share it
with INSTALL kernel than providing module(7) functions by default?

> Now, why do you think it isn't sane to "builtin" a minimal set of
> modules that could allow GENERIC to boot safely up to single user?

Builtin modules cannot be disabled or replaced without sources.
Consider pros and cons. If you don't think module(7) is useful,
I have no more comments.

> I am
> not sure that ending up in a ddb prompt just because someone forgot to
> install the new modules set provides... flexibility.

Just document "don't forget to install modules as well as kernel."

Anyway, module(7) is required for users who won't compile their kernels,
i.e. users who are using installers and release distribution binaries,
so you don't have to worry about failure on updating.

If everyone thinks NetBSD is an OS for (stupid) geeks, I'll shut up.

Izumi Tsutsui

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index