Re: priority of paths to kernel modules?

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:22 AM Johannes Lundberg <johalun0_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:12 AM Matthew Macy <mmacy_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> > No we're not. x86 and PPC will be disconnected from the build in a
> > subsequent commit during the freeze. Warner was simply too tired to
> > communicate this adequately and still meet the timeline that RE wanted.
> >
> > And take heart. Even if Warner weren't trying to balance the needs of RE
> > and the graphics team + user base on post-2013 hardware - the graphics
> > doesn't _have_ to support 12.x. it's well within the team's rights to
> > simply declare 12.x as unsupported. The team is welcome to simply say we
> > support 11.x and 13.x. The failing was largely in that "expected" processes
> > are not documented and not well communicated.
> >
> > Warner is acting in good faith. He's just trying to balance many demands
> > in a compressed time period.
> >
> > Cheers.
> > -M
> >
> >
> OK, thanks for the clarification. That's a good compromise I guess.
>
> Still, regardless of drm, aren't modules in overlay folders suppose to have
> higher priority than those in the kernel folder?
>

(Putting on my loader ballcap)

I would like to change this after 12 branches to append by default and
allow one to add ${kernel_path} to their module_path to override that,
since the status quo has been such for 18 years and some may want to
go back to that. I've personally been bitten by it a couple too many
times to be happy with the current situation.

(Takes off loader ballcap)

Thanks,

Kyle Evans