Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 19:06:12 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: marcel@xcllnt.net Cc: jhb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica acconfig.h acenv.h acfreebsd.h acgcc.h acpi.h acpiosxf.h acpixf.h acutils.h dbcmds.c dbxface.c exfldio.c exsystem.c hwsleep.c psparse.c rscreate.c tbget.c utglobal.c Message-ID: <20030501.190612.124380423.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030501193258.GB778@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <200304291911.h3TJB0E2076851@repoman.freebsd.org> <XFMail.20030501143516.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030501193258.GB778@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030501193258.GB778@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>
Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> writes:
: The question: do people think we should try to get another ACPI
: snapshot in (provided we have someone willing to do it) and thus
: try to get it fixed the "official" way or are we ok with changing
: contrib'd code in this case and revert to the vendor branch when
: we do upgrade sometime after 5.1?
We must have another snapshot with all the breakages that this import
caused fixed. If Nate isn't willing to do it, I would be. In the
long term it is in our best interest to get the issues resolved with
the Intel code.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030501.190612.124380423.imp>