DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2009-05
Re: pkg_dry on DragonFlyBSD
On Sat, 9 May 2009 15:15:48 +0200
Joerg Sonnenberger <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:27:16PM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> > There may well come a time for either of these where there are
> > two incompatible versions extant supporting two actively used versions
> > of their client (think around a major version bump). It would be much
> > easier to maintain multiple active versions in the pkgsrc framework
> > than in the kernel source tree.
> What is more likely? The kernel interface changing enough to require
> fixing the module or an incompatible version to appear?
The kernel interface almost certainly changes more often than
incompatible versions appearing. IMHO the question is not which is more
likely but rather where can both problems be solved most elegantly.
> I am against pushing kernel modules into pkgsrc because I strongly
> believe based on experience from watching different kernels and external
> modules for years, that the former happens a lot more often.
That's not what's being suggested, quite. What's being suggested is
having it in a an area outside the base but still within the DragonFly
repository. Putting it under the pkgsrc hierarchy when installed makes it
possible to use pkgsrc tools with it.
All I'm pointing out is that kqemu and drm are very similar in the
scope of problems they pose and that a good solution for one is likely to
be a good solution for the other - whatever that good solution may be.
> Why does it make it better to keep them in base? Because that way the
> exposure is much greater. Heck, if it is part of the normal buildworld,
> people do care about breaking it...
However it becomes messy to keep two versions in the base.
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/