Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:43:12 +0100 From: Tomasz CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@sohara.org> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, "James E. Pace" <james@pacehouse.com>, FreeBSD Questions Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 12.1 on Thinkpad - problem making graphics work Message-ID: <CAFYkXj=tpwVhuNPbcjAdS9pYT3Z91cJHT_ZPCgTrGvdVTz%2BJaQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20191110144830.096ce11b0668dd0721359cfa@sohara.org> References: <CAN1es4Jqy17VZeJkEFrUtX872929eLt78Bmrc20jPcernhk88A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1es4Lab0uvZRPb51PaSjDDOH%2B9ZQTQedi1xvKO%2BCbnsbr20g@mail.gmail.com> <20191108194652.50c4f8e7c87ec76b9abc6e19@sohara.org> <CAFYkXjkWLwfZaBwR6pXRp18ZWV76B2%2BBwUeuyKVTgv6Trzy_qQ@mail.gmail.com> <20191108200005.21a9cdac18587cc36bd7cb01@sohara.org> <CAFYkXj=zofebWOtNhdzc8PhHC5xbWSQGf2pmQNywq1hjSDFVUg@mail.gmail.com> <20191109154827.42b0b2e1.freebsd@edvax.de> <20191109183356.76307bdc4ab6f0a1f68c0acd@sohara.org> <CAFYkXjnu2GDD%2BcY900nXQMRJ4jwzk0vdob5ESxjg24FhC6BHOA@mail.gmail.com> <20191110144830.096ce11b0668dd0721359cfa@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve O'Hara-Smith napisa=C5=82: > On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 13:22:52 +0100 > Tomasz CEDRO wrote: > > > I hope FreeBSD will stay that way and remain its high quality standards= . > > Breaking kernel API/ABI with each release is definitely NOT the way to > go. > > This was a late (post release) discovered bug not intentional > breakage. > Sure. Bugs happen. Workaround was quickly found. However, if you look at GitHub discussion [1] a solution is proposed that will consider API changes, different versions variants for different releases, modules and packages infrastructure complication. This sounds the Linux way not the BSD way. This seems to be the root cause of the problem.. The problem would never happen in the first place when API was designed in a way it does not change with next versions and releases. No further complications to the core and infrastructure is necessary. No "bleeding-edge" accepted into kernel. While some "DRM vs DRM2" issues may result like removing drm.ko from kernel at all (it has no use anyway). Why the upstream does not land here into drm.ko? Another story is about loading external modules from ports directly into kernel.. and updating them with PKG. If the module was reviewed under strict core merge rules and probably tested with CI before things like this would not happen. Kernel modules restricted for update with freebsd-update could also increase security and stability. https://github.com/FreeBSDDesktop/kms-drm/issues/183 I really LOVE FreeBSD. I just do not want it to become a mess like the rest of the world, just because others do :-) Best regards, Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXj=tpwVhuNPbcjAdS9pYT3Z91cJHT_ZPCgTrGvdVTz%2BJaQ>