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? >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 Thu May 31 2018 - 20:34:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:16 UTC