[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: src
Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> wrote:
> 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.
I have actually proposed a different name, "/kmods". However, more people
> 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
Fixed, thanks to Havard.
> 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.
No, kernel modules were introduced before 5.0 was branched. While usability
of them is questionable, you can still have a simple kmod in 5.0. On this
basis I do not think that moving from "/stand" to "/kernel" between releases
would be a good idea.
> Before we proceed with this, can we all reach consensus on tech-kern,
While most of people agree that "/stand" is not a good path, various people
supported "/kernel". Change was proposed here, and resulted in a flame:
2. No consensus or even discussion were in PR/38724 by Havard.
Another flame is what I am trying to avoid.
Main Index |
Thread Index |