Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 15:47:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> Cc: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@wilcox-tech.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Deprecation and removal of the drm2 driver Message-ID: <201805222247.w4MMlFxm032110@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CAHM0Q_M02heuWPBGv23C7OgiVYsMmMkqH6DjzyoUp1C0E-0-SQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I am concerned about just shoving it out to ports, as that makes > > it rot even faster. > > > > I am still very concerned that our in base i9xx code is like 4 > > years old and everyone is told to go to kmod-next from ports > > as well. > > > > No, I do not have a solution, but I have not tried hard to find > > one. I am sure if we try hard to find one it can be done. > > drm-next is a port and it's what most everyone will be using going > forward. You're asking us to make a special case for a small vocal > group of i386 users. If i386 is sufficiently important, its user base > can support it. Are you saying there is only one way forward? -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201805222247.w4MMlFxm032110>