Re: CVS commit: src

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 03:38:56PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> 
>    
>    Module Name:       src
>    Committed By:      rmind
>    Date:              Sat Jan 24 00:29:13 UTC 2009
>    
>    Modified Files:
>       src/distrib/i386/kmod: Makefile
>       src/distrib/sets: sets.subr
>       src/distrib/sets/lists/base: module.mi
>       src/share/mk: bsd.kmodule.mk
>       src/sys/arch/i386/stand/lib: exec.c
>       src/sys/kern: kern_module.c
>    
>    Log Message:
>    Change path to kernel modules from "/stand" to "/kernel".
>    Needs to go in before 5.0.  Proposed on <tech-kern>.
> 
> 
> i saw it proposed, but i didn't see any agreement that this was
> a good idea.  mostly it degenerated into a discussion about
> pathnames underneath the toplevel.
> 
> why is /kernel better than /stand, and if it needs to change,
> why does 5.0 need it?

I'm of the same opinion as Matt - the discussion on the change of
directory location never reached a full resolution, and, especially in
the case of a new top level directory, I'd really expect consensus.

I also think the proposed new name for the directory is not correct -
these are kernel modules we are talking about, not a full kernel.
The directory name should describe this.

In its present form, the change is not complete, as the build fails
because the directory has not been created.

        nbmtree: ./kernel: No such file or directory
        nbmtree: failed at line 35903 of the specification

It would be a real shame if we were to foul up the 5.0 release at this
late stage, with a change that has not been worked through thoroughly.

Why does 5.0 need this - modules were introduced after 5.0 was branched,
and I would expect any 5.1 or subsequent release to be the same.

Before we proceed with this, can we all reach consensus on tech-kern,
please?

Many thanks,
Al