On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Claus Guttesen wrote: > > 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 I mean something in /usr/ports. > 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? Then why allow ports to create & install KLDs at all? This would cause /usr/src to reference an outside source (ie somewhere in LOCALBASE where KLD source would be) but since the user already opted to install a port KLD it seems reasonable. I did get told that in theory you shouldn't need to rebuild port KLDs on a release branch because the ABI shouldn't change.. That's a bit unsatisfactory because people run -current where this guarantee doesn't apply, and it isn't an iron-clad guarantee anyway :) Basically it seems to me that it would have no drawbacks and prevent people from forgetting to recompile stuff which could hose them down the track.. -- 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 - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:34 UTC