From owner-freebsd-current Wed Apr 2 10:51:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA15949 for current-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15942 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA14025; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:30:54 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199704021830.LAA14025@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Kernel Module System To: koshy@india.hp.com (A JOSEPH KOSHY) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:30:54 -0700 (MST) Cc: gibbs@plutotech.com, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199704020527.AA134058855@fakir.india.hp.com> from "A JOSEPH KOSHY" at Apr 2, 97 10:27:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > You don't want a single version number really. You want one for each > > subsystem that an LKM may depend upon. For example, the SCSI system might > > Yes, but there is a tradeoff between complexity and utility. When things get more complex, there is an unfortunate increase in their utility as well? 8-) 8-) 8-p. > This is really a release engineering issue, not a development one, and I > think it may make it easier for third party vendors to offer binary only > LKM addons for FreeBSD. Yes. That should be one of the main considerations: how do you open up commercial markets to increase overall support of FreeBSD by vendors who want to support it, but can't because it's too closed. 8-(. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.