Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:21:36 -0500 (EST) From: Larry Lile <lile@stdio.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current status of the olicom fracas. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902211417360.10455-100000@heathers.stdio.com> In-Reply-To: <17431.919624520@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan, David and any other -core members, what is your take on things? Since neither I nor Poul have a final say on things. Any suggestions? Larry Lile lile@stdio.com On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902211336080.9637-100000@heathers.stdio.com>, Larry > > >So are my suggestions for making my driver and Olicom's objects more > >palatble to the source tree not acceptable? What are the points of > >contention? I would like to know so that I can see what else I could > >do to fix this. > > They are not acceptable to me. An object file just simply doesn't > count as "source" in my book. > > >I do think it is important to make the distinction between my driver > >"if_oltr.c" and Olicom's "trlld.o". There is nothing about my driver, or > >Olicom's header file "trlld.h", that violate the spirit of the source > >tree. I think that the driver and header are fine where they live in > >dev/oltr as it is a combined ISA/PCI driver. > > Sure, it's only that one file I have a problem with, and only because > we do not have the source. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member > phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." > FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9902211417360.10455-100000>