Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:32:47 +0930 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers? Message-ID: <200305291332.47580.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20030529031858.GA33495@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <200305281350.27953.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200305290920.23291.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20030529031858.GA33495@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 May 2003 12:48, Steve Kargl wrote: > > You are describing how it happens now, not WHY it happens like that. > > The WHY is obvious. The modules > (1) get rebuilt with the kernel. > (2) get installed with the kernel. > (3) get moved to /boot/kernel.old when a new kernel is installed. > (4) *Ideally*, if an API changes, the modules will be updated > by the developer/committer who breaks the modules; otherwise, > a person experiencing the breakage can ask for the commit to > be backed out. (Note, the *ideally* acknowledges that 64-bit > platforms seem to suffer API breakage more than ia32). > > > I think the existing solution has problems, and would prefer some > > external hooks for 3rd party modules. > > If you mean "third party modules without available sources", then > (1) The module should work for whatever -RELEASE i for which it was > built. (2) If you upgrade the OS, the module may or may not work. > (a) If it works, well aren't you lucky. > (b) If it doesn't work, then > (i) Ask the vendor for an update. > (ii) Hack around the breakage. > (iii) Downgrade to the *PROPER* -RELEASE. No, I mean third party modules with available sources, but not necessarily up to scratch code wise, or license wise. I think if the code is committed there is a much greater onus to make sure it doesn't break, and it incrases the load on everyone testing things. My basic point is that people want to use 3rd party modules - they aren't committers so it's not like they can just wack some code into the repo. The alternative for them is manual patching or using the ports framework - this is OK but suffers integration problems. I just want some way of rebuilding my 3rd party modules with my kernel that doesn't involve me having to jump through hoops :( I don't see what the down side of rebuilding 3rd party modules with a buildkernel and friends is. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305291332.47580.doconnor>