Re: policy on GPL'd drivers?

On Wed, 28 May 2003 14:22, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <200305281147.53271.doconnor_at_gsoft.com.au>
>
>             "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor_at_gsoft.com.au> writes:
> : 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 :(
>
> This is true.  I'd thought that MODULES_OVERRIDE would help, but ports
> builds and kernel builds are different enough to make this not easy to
> do.
>
> Wanna test a patch?  Add a 'makeoptions PORTS_MODULES=comms/ltmdm' to
> your config file and apply the following patch.  Lemme know how well
> (or poorly) it works.  There's likely some hidden assumptions that
> make it appear to work for me.

I don't see how it can work properly..

You need 'FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=' in the install target.

I don't think how the patch is structured is sensible though :)

1) If the port is updated between builds you end up with two version of the 
port installed.

2) You can't control where the module gets put - arguably this isn't a 
calamity, but I think it makes more sense for the modules to end up in 
/boot/modules, or some analog to it that is in $PREFIX.

IMHO a standard should be set WRT item 2 so future ports writers know what the 
proper way to do it is :)

I guess the problem with mandating somewhere in $PREFIX is that the loader 
can't load it, so that's no good. I guess the only choice left is 
/boot/modules.

Any comments?

-- 
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
  -- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140  AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5