git: e013e36939ac - main - linux(4): Get rid of Linuxulator kernel build options.
Jessica Clarke
jrtc27 at freebsd.org
Tue Jun 22 11:36:29 UTC 2021
On 22 Jun 2021, at 12:01, Dmitry Chagin <dchagin at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:56:38PM +0100, Jessica Clarke wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2021, at 17:56, Dmitry Chagin <dchagin at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The branch main has been updated by dchagin:
>>>
>>> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=e013e36939ac87b53195370fb5e29f29c1a4b5c6
>>>
>>> commit e013e36939ac87b53195370fb5e29f29c1a4b5c6
>>> Author: Dmitry Chagin <dchagin at FreeBSD.org>
>>> AuthorDate: 2021-06-22 05:32:39 +0000
>>> Commit: Dmitry Chagin <dchagin at FreeBSD.org>
>>> CommitDate: 2021-06-22 05:32:39 +0000
>>>
>>> linux(4): Get rid of Linuxulator kernel build options.
>>>
>>> Stop confusing people, retire COMPAT_LINUX and COMPAT_LINUX32 kernel
>>> build options. Since we have 32 and 64 bit Linux emulators, we can't build both
>>> emulators together into the kernel. I don't think it matters, Linux emulation
>>> depends on loadable modules (via rc).
>>>
>>> Cut LINPROCFS and LINSYSFS for consistency.
>>
>> I don’t see why these two should be deleted? They currently build fine,
>> and GNU/kFreeBSD kernels enable them. They might work as modules, but I
>> would worry that too many parts of userland would try and read them
>> before /etc/init.d/kldutils (the init script that loads modules) loads
>> them, so then we’d have to mess around with GRUB configs to preload
>> them. If the options work, please leave them in.
>>
>
> both FS modules depend on linux.ko on i386 or linux_common.ko on amd64,
> so it doesn't make sense to have options for them
But that still worked, and was even in NOTES so being tested by LINT.
>> There’s a separate debate of whether this is the “right” fix for
>> COMPAT_LINUX*; arguably that *should* work and it’s a bug that they
>> don’t, not a feature, even if it’s not of much interest to support…
>>
>> I’d like to see the second half reverted, please, and believe the first
>> should be too, but I feel less strongly about that.
>>
>
> I think that descendants should adapt to upstream, esp since there is no
> KBI or ABI breakage. btw, debian wiki says gnu/kFreeBSD unmaintained
> since 2014. That is the reason to worry about dead project?
As the current maintainer this is news to me. I see no such comment on
the port’s wiki page[1].
Jess
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD
More information about the dev-commits-src-all
mailing list