Re: kern/41668 (MONOLITHIC should probably also be included in HEAD builds)

[Matthias Scheler <tron%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/41668; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Matthias Scheler <tron%NetBSD.org@localhost>
To: Andrew Doran <ad%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc: NetBSD GNATS <gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: kern/41668 (MONOLITHIC should probably also be included in HEAD 
builds)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:18:38 +0000

 On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:14:26AM +0000, Andrew Doran wrote:
 > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 06:23:13AM +0000, tron%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
 > > Synopsis: MONOLITHIC should probably also be included in HEAD builds
 > > 
 > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: ad->tron
 > > Responsible-Changed-By: tron%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > > Responsible-Changed-When: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:23:13 +0000
 > > Responsible-Changed-Why:
 > > I'll handle this PR.
 > > 
 > > 
 > > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > > State-Changed-By: tron%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > > State-Changed-When: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:23:13 +0000
 > > State-Changed-Why:
 > > The MONOLITHIC is now built by default and distributed with snapshots.
 > > This should probably be undone after the release of NetBSD 6.0 if the
 > > problems with the module framework have been fixed in the meantime.
 > 
 > This should definitely be undone.
 
 I'm sorry but I have to disagree. While the module framework is a step
 in the right direction it is at the moment incomplete. This should be
 addressed *before* it gets widely deployed.
 
 > It confuses the needs of the producers of the product with the needs
 > of the consumers of the product.
 
 The module framework caused a lot of problems for the consumers of
 the product. Please have a look at the archive of the
 "current-users" mailing list to see how many users ended up with
 non bootable systems.
 
        Kind regards
 
 -- 
 Matthias Scheler                                  http://zhadum.org.uk/