Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:33:47 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Trond_Endrest=F8l?= <Trond.Endrestol@fagskolen.gjovik.no> Cc: Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org>, Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: kernel build failure Message-ID: <YTOPR0101MB182026F2D1CBA069F3D758B1DD380@YTOPR0101MB1820.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <201808131628.w7DGSvOm037857@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1808131129430.69607@mail.fig.ol.no>, <201808131628.w7DGSvOm037857@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:39-0700, Matthew Macy wrote: >> >> > Sorry guys, last time I touched ZFS I tried to push to make it an opti= on to >> > statically link and was actually told that it wasn't something anyone = else >> > wanted. The issue comes from ZFS not being in NOTES and thus not in LI= NT. >> >> If consensus is that "options ZFS" is no longer valid, then maybe >> UPDATING should reflect the fact. >> >> I can live with loading zfs.ko and opensolaris.ko at boot time, but I >> think this is a step backwards. > >Please no, I can think of no sound reason that you should be >forced to use modules. I thought that ZFS was required to be a module because of the licensing terms (they didn't want any CDDL code in the core kernel)? rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTOPR0101MB182026F2D1CBA069F3D758B1DD380>