git: e013e36939ac - main - linux(4): Get rid of Linuxulator kernel build options.

[Dmitry Chagin]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 12:36:26PM +0100, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> 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
>
I read: https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/index.en.html