problem building dev/e1000

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> 
> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 11:47, Robert Huff <roberthuff at rcn.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Lev Serebryakov writes:
> > 
> >>> My question would be: why? If some drivers have a new 
> >>> dependency on iflib, why isn't that expressed in sys/conf/files 
> >>> and handled automatically?
As expressed elsewhere that gets a bit messy when it is more than
just a few things that depend on this module, and historically
has been done by adding comments to GENERIC that describe the
dependency in the form of "requires iflib".

Though there are some ideas floating around that might better
address this, for the time being that is how it is being handled.

> >>  My question exactly.
> > 
> >    I am so glad people who know what they're talking about have the
> > same response I did.  :-)
> 
> I totally missed the part where Robert said he was compiling it
> into the kernel. Also, I remember the days when drivers didn?t
> automatically compile in dependent options (example: ?device re?
> requires ?device miibus?). I guess things have changed a bit in
> the past year [while I was away] with some drivers?
> Thanks,
> -Enji
> >            Respectcfully,
> >                Robert Huff

Nothing has changed, other than we now have another miibus
type thing called iflib and there are a half dozen drivers
that need to have iflib compiled in if you use them.  What
is new is that these drivers already existed in the past,
but have been re-written to use iflib, so if your carrying
an old kernel config file around and update accross the
iflib'ification of that driver you have to pick up the
change that went into GENERIC that pulls in iflib.

These are probably the types of changes that we should
consider not merging to something called stable/.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org