RFC: moving sysutils/fusefs-kmod to base system
Claus Guttesen
kometen at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 09:55:17 UTC 2008
>> > Unless I understand how the kernel does stuff there is no penalty
>> > for having unused modules (except the size of the kernel that needs
>> > to be loaded). Keeping in mind that unless I am not reading stuff
>> > corectly fusefs-kmod is the only FS related module that is not in
>> > the base system. Since any fundamental changes in the generic FS
>> > API seems to break fusefs-kmod, and cause some very nasty effects
>> > that are almost impossible to trace to fusefs-kmod (machine freezes
>> > so no output or core dump) it seems to make sense to move it to
>> > the base system (after all we already do this with third party FS
>> > code like x/zfs) by moving it we force it to always compile
>> > instead of breaking
>>
>> This can be done by documenting usage of make.conf PORTS_MODULES
>> knob. Just a little notice in ports would suffice, not anybody out
>> there compiles a new kernel daily.
>
> <soapbox>
> It would be nice if ports could put their kernel module source somewhere
> so that a buildkernel would build it.
>
> This has several advantages
> - You don't upgrade the port unless you want to when building a kernel.
> - If the kernel API changes you find out because the port doesn't
> compile then you can make an informed decision.
> - You don't need a working network connection to rebuild your kernel.
>
> </soapbox>
By ports do you mean the ports-system? If that's the case you're
mixing the basesystem with applications. The separation of basesystem
and apps is IMO one of BSD's strength. Why not use portupgrade for
that purpose?
--
regards
Claus
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom,
the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.
Shakespeare
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list