policy on GPL'd drivers?

[Q]

I have been burnt by this in the past also. I think that it would be
useful if you could allow kernel modules to be bound to a particular
kernel "version/date/whatever", and have external modules refuse to load
and/or complain if the kernel is upgraded. This should prevent
unnecessary kernel panics when you upgrade. The Linux kernel has been
doing this for years.

Seeya...Q

On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 12:17, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 22:13, David Leimbach wrote:
> > > However the idea is that all GPL infected stuff be isolated, allowing a
> > > fully working kernel without GPL stuff in there.
> >
> > Sounds like a "kernel module" is the way to go then.  Perhaps it could
> > exist in the ports tree instead of the mainline kernel sources :).  I
> > know
> > I'd be happy with that... the problem is hosting the driver since I am
> > sure
> > "patching" it won't be enough to map the linux innards to freebsd's.
> 
> There are already a number of kernel modules in the ports tree (eg nvidia 
> drivers, ltmdm modem driver, aureal sound driver, etc).
> 
> The only downside is that there are no hooks into the build process so you 
> have to be VERY careful when you update your kernel, or you get panics :(
> 
> (I found this recently, some change broke all of my 3rd party modules and 
> caused panics when I tried to load them).
> 
> I would really like some way of getting external modules rebuilt at the same 
> time as buildkernel and friends, otherwise you have to remember to rebuild 
> the affected ports, and it is a pain in the ass.
-- 
Seeya...Q

               -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                        
                          _____  /   Quinton Dolan -  q at OntheNet.com.au
  __  __/  /   /   __/   /      /          
     /    __  /   _/    /      /         Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
  __/  __/ __/ ____/   /   -  /             Ph: +61 419 729 806
                    _______  /              
                            _\