[RFC] Deprecation and removal of the drm2 driver

[Scott Bennett]

"K. Macy" <kmacy at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Steve Kargl
> <sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 02:40:50AM +0300, Rozhuk Ivan wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 May 2018 21:10:28 +0200
> >> Oliver Pinter <oliver.pinter at hardenedbsd.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > One of the reasons for the deprecation and removal of the drm2 bits
> >> > > is that they prevent us from automatically loading the
> >> > > drm-next/stable-kmod kernel modules, since the two collide.
> >> > > Regards
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Then it wold be better to resolve this problem, rather then removing a
> >> > working solution. What's about module versioning what in other cases
> >> > works?
> >> >
> >>
> >> May be just move old drm2 to ports?
> >
> > Why?  "If it isn't broken, why fix it?"
> >
> > The conflict affects x86_64-*-freebsd aka amd64.  The
> > conflict does not affect any other architecture.  The
> > Makefile infrastructure can use MACHINE_ARCH to exclude
> > drm2 from build of amd64.
> >
> <strawman ... clipped>
> Having it as a port puts the burden squarely on those using it and not
> on the majority who are running hardware from this decade.
>
     Ah, yes, hurrah for free software (and dedication to the wealthy)!
Nice attitude.  Also, remember that not all X.org users are PC gamers.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:   bennett at sdf.org   *xor*   bennett at freeshell.org  *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************