Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:11:57 +0100 From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: Matt Emmerton <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Candidates for inclusion in DEFAULTS Message-ID: <20060102101157.GA63949@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <005001c60f69$2dfff650$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> References: <005001c60f69$2dfff650$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 01:53:03AM -0500, Matt Emmerton wrote: > Just looking through the kernel code, and there are many strong warnings (in > NOTES, GENERIC and various bits of code) that strongly advise *not* removing > COMPAT_43 from the kernel config. > > In fact, doing so causes lots of things to break, especially the > Linuxulator. > > That said, would COMPAT_43 (and possibly COMPAT_FREEBSD4 and > COMPAT_FREEBSD5) be good candidates to put in DEFAULTS -- at least on i386? I have patch in queue which removes dependancy of linuxator on COMPAT_43 (hysteria.sk/~neologism/linux43.patch) - its tested on amd64/i386 but havent tried alpha (not even building it - anyone willing to test this?) and I plan to work to split COMPAT_43 into whats necessary for tty stuff and the rest. after this we can remove COMPAT_43 from even GENERIC imho. I dont think that moving in the direction you suggest is correct. roman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060102101157.GA63949>