Re: CVS commit: src

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

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
supported "/kernel".

> 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,
> please?

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:

1. http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2008/11/12/msg003414.html
2. No consensus or even discussion were in PR/38724 by Havard.

Another flame is what I am trying to avoid.

-- 
Best regards,
Mindaugas