"DRM removal soon" is premature

[Steve Kargl]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 02:58:10PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> 
> Not to pile on unnecessarily here, but I think the fundamental issue is that
> there is nobody who wants to maintain the in-tree DRM, and removal is likely a
> better option to half-assed maintenance. I'd imagine there'd be a different
> discussion if several developers were clamoring to keep this driver well
> maintained in the tree.
> 

Unhooking a driver from the build, so that it cannot expose
a change that breaks said driver is certainly a way to 
ensure the driver is not maintained.

Wasted a weekend trying to find and attempting to fix the
damage caused by a change in src/sys to the drm-legacy-kmod
port.  You know, the port that was promised as part of the
drm2 removal.  I would have spent this weekend testing 
changes to cexp, cexpf, the soon-to-be-submitted cexpl,
ccosh, ccoshf, and the soon-to-be-submitted ccoshl.  That's
all on hold now as I'm not sure when I'll be able to carve
out time for testing.

-- 
Steve