On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:34 PM Oliver Pinter < oliver.pinter_at_hardenedbsd.org> wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018, Johannes Lundberg <johalun0_at_gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:34 PM Joe Maloney <jmaloney_at_ixsystems.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I personally wish that more drivers, and firmware were separated from >> > base. >> > >> > >> I'm not a committer > > >> >> > If you are not a committer, how and why want to remove drm2 from the base > system? > Nice way to shoot down people (who are working together with active committers) trying to make FreeBSD and it's derivatives a better OS for its users. As a way to help prevent breakage I suggested an upgrade to the outdated build infrastructure. Something that should be done anyway. But what do I know, I don't have a commit bit... > > From other side, how you want to maintain VM and other KPI changes in > unmaintained and abandoned port? ;) Or how you can guarantee to everyone > who breaks KPI to follow these breaks in an external abandoned port? > > >> >> but as I understand there's not pre-commit integration >> tests.. If one had that, plus that it would test build kmod ports against >> the pre-commit state of head as well, then maybe this would work. >> >> >> > For example wireless firmware: >> > >> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169433 >> > >> > That was a ticket which I chimed in on about a firmware I needed to make >> > my wireless adapter work. I went through numerous efforts on IRC, and >> > elsewhere to try to bring attention that ticket in order to attempt to >> get >> > that firmware backported for several 10.x releases in a row without >> > success. The firmware worked perfectly fine in PC-BSD where it was >> cherry >> > picked for numerous 10.x releases. >> > >> > Technically since I was using PC-BSD, and was a committer for that >> project >> > I had no real dire need to reach out to FreeBSD about the issue. I was >> > simply trying to help anyone else who might be encountering the same >> issue >> > trying to use stock FreeBSD because it was a simple backport. If my >> effort >> > had turned out to be more fruitful I would have spent more time pursuing >> > tickets, diffs, or whatever to get more things back-ported when I found >> > them. I am not sure where the breakdown was which did not allow that to >> > happen. Anyways I don't want to bikeshed, or anything but I just >> wanted to >> > point out how I think having more drivers, and firmware in ports could >> be >> > helpful to enhance compatibility for end users. >> > >> > Having a separate port for legacy drm could definitely make things >> easier >> > to providing installation options for end users, and automating the post >> > install action chosen in TrueOS, GhostBSD, and future derivative >> projects >> > tailored for the desktop use case. For example for TrueOS we boot the >> > installer in failsafe mode with either VESA, or SCFB depending on >> whether >> > or not BIOS, or EFI is booted. Then we could simply make a checkbox for >> > legacy intel, or skylake + to install the correct package then the >> module >> > path for either driver can more or less remain the same. Eventually >> with >> > something like devmatch maybe that can even be fully automatic. >> > >> > Joe Maloney >> > >> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:34:44AM +0100, Johannes Lundberg wrote: >> >>> >> >>> We're not replacing anything. We are moving the older drm1 and drm2 >> from >> >>>> kernel to ports to make it easier for the majority of the users to >> load >> >>>> the >> >>>> correct driver without conflicts. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> You do understand that you increase your maintainence load by this >> move. >> >>> dev/drm and dev/drm2 use KPIs which cannot be kept stable even in >> stable >> >>> branches, so you will need to chase these updates. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I agree. One argument previously made was that it's easier >> >> to maintain in ports. One data point from me - I rarely >> >> update my ports, I update my OS much more frequently. In >> >> fact, some times my ports get so out of date I just >> >> (take off and) nuke /usr/local (from orbit, it's the only >> >> way to be sure). >> >> >> >> Also, are we trying to solve a problem by moving drm[2] to >> >> ports that won't be a problem when base is pkg'ized? If >> >> drm[2] is a package unto itself, then you don't have this >> >> problem of ports conflicting with it, at least not so >> >> much. You can either not install the base drm[2] package >> >> or deinstall it to make way for a conflicting port. Once >> >> drm[2] is pkg rm'd, it's not going to be reinstalled >> >> again when you update the base OS. >> >> >> >> And don't we have the same problem with sendmail and a >> >> few other base services? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> DE >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >> >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org >> >> " >> >> >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org >> " >> >Received on Fri Jun 01 2018 - 04:09:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:16 UTC