Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:22:46AM +0000, Jonathan Perkin wrote: >> Your patch only handles legacy wrappers, not cwrappers which is >> necessary for fast (bulk) builds. If you can come up with a patch >> which handles cwrappers too (which would be required for integration >> anyway) then I'd be happy to test it. > > As long as cwrappers is not enabled by default[1], I don't think this > should be a requirement for patches to be accepted. > Thomas I don't think that's quite the right nuance. The question is not exactly about default, but about which set of mechanisms we consider to be part of the existing stable base and which therefore must not be broken by changes, vs things that are still experimental and must cope with other changes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature