Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:07:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004242202480.50194-100000@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <20000424171908.D397@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote: > The entire point is that somewhere the user has decided to upgrade > their system, and they need to know what the consequences are before > taking the plunge. If they upgrade their system half-ass (kernel, but > not modules) they are digging their own grave. More to the point, until the module versioning and dependency stuff hits the tree, KLD modules remain a useful novelty. I wouldn't consider them to be at all appropriate for production systems right now. The only reliable way to insure that a given module works with a given kernel is to build them from the same source tree at the same time. </strong opinion> -- | Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD | | winter@jurai.net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax | | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | ISO8802.5 4ever | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0004242202480.50194-100000>