Re: core's decision on modular kernels

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20110921125754.GB22254@agamemnon.entropie.local>,
Martin S. Weber <Ephaeton%gmx.net@localhost> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:55:38AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> (...)
>> Accordingly, we propose the following policy for the immediate
>> future.  We expect that it will be appropriate to re-evaluate this
>> policy as the state of modular support changes later.
>> 
>> - All ports using modules should provide all three of MODULAR,
>>    MONOLITHIC, and GENERIC kernels.
>> 
>> (...)
>> - A port's MONOLITHIC kernel should include features that
>>    traditionally would have been present in a non-modular GENERIC
>>    kernel, and it may or may not include "options MODULAR", at the
>>    portmaster's discretion.
>
>Huh? Would it be possible please to get a more detailed rationale
>behind allowing "options MODULAR" in a MONOLITHIC kernel, if all
>ports using modules already offer MODULAR and GENERIC?

The only reason would be to allow additional modules to be loaded
at runtime. I.e. MONOLITHIC might not contain all the drivers.

christos