[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Path to kmods
On Nov,Saturday 22 2008, at 9:00 PM, Martin S. Weber wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 02:36:42PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, der Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
It started with kernel modules, the first introduction of dynamic
linking to the kernel. Now I'm seeing it following more or less the
There is a step between providing a feature, which is a good thing,
and deprecating everything else.
That's true but the project moves towards a 'new features, we groom
and old features we drop 'em without proper discussion first'
I therefore can see what dM is saying, why, and I fear, too, that this
is going to happen. By the latest developments you can see that we
stopped caring about backwards compatibility, from the programmers,
system administrators, the packagers and the users view. So what
think that the "hard to groom because 'nobody' uses it" features will
get fixed? Who is/was fixing the SA bugs? "It's ugly let's drop it".
I'm not sure what you mean with droping SA. But SA is supported in all
NetBSD releases even in HEAD.
Who will notice when a non modular generic is broken?
There is no code difference between MODULAR module and standard kernel
Who notices if XFree gets broken?
"Use X.Org". Who fixes softdeps? "It is going to be dropped and
by WAPBL". Who fixes interop issues on systems that do not want IPv6 ?
"Better get to like IPv6. ENOPATCH.
You can still fix all bugs and submit patches.
Main Index |
Thread Index |