Re: RFC: moving sysutils/fusefs-kmod to base system

>> > 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