On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:40PM, David O'Brien <dev-null_at_NUXI.com> wrote: >On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:43:15AM -0500, 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. > >Depending on the functionality the driver provides, and the kernel API's >it uses; having it as a port may be impractical. The driver probably >needs to change with the kernel and that is hard to handle as a port. I agree it could get sticky. But a patch or series of patches per kernel delta [as needed] may not be so bad. There has to be a fairly simple way to map the two together :). And I really only would "have to" support releases. I'd prefer to burn that bridge once I've got a working driver though.... Don't want to jump ahead too much for fear of the old bike shed. DaveReceived on Tue May 27 2003 - 10:13:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:09 UTC