Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:11:31 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com>, Pat Barron <pat@transarc.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: So, exactly what *was* purged? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.981228151101.20004D-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199812281859.CAA67283@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Transputer co-processor board...
what do I win?
julian
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Pat Barron wrote:
> >
> > > I know someone asked this, but I have not seen an answer: Could someone
> > > provide a list of exactly what was purged? It would be handy to know
> > > things like, "this was purged, and is absolutely *not* coming back", or
> > > "this was purged, but is being considered for reinstatement", but what I
> > > really want to know is *exactly* what is now (today) gone, that used to be
> > > there.
> >
> > voxware, lkms, vinum(an lkm)
>
> - DSI_SOFT_MODEM
> - bqu driver
> - 3c505 (note, *NOT* 3c905)
> - pcvt
> - broken (not updated for CAM) scsi drivers: nca, sea, wds, uha
> - ft
> - wcd (use acd instead)
> - voxware
> - lkm building (all lkm's have a corresponding kld)
>
> The vinum KLD module was accidently broken - it shared it's sources with
> the LKM.
>
> And 10 points to the first person who can tell me what 'bqu' was without
> looking it up. :-)
>
> > voxware may come back, vinum is definetly coming back as kld
>
> The jury is out on pcvt and voxware.. My feeling is that there's more than
> enough support for both to revive them.
>
> Vinum is already fixed (I hope), and should also now support being
> compiled into the kernel ("pseudo-device vinum") as well.
>
> > basically klms which have been deemed bad by -core are gone, as well as
> > voxware.
>
> LKM's have been deemed sub-optimal by just about everyone. We are in a
> situation where the KLD system is a superset of LKM's and it's a lot of
> work duplicating effort to keep LKM's working. LKM's are a.out only while
> KLD's are a.out and ELF, and both formats work on either format kernel..
> KLD's work with DDB, KLD's can be auto-loaded by the kernel (and are
> already for filesystems).
>
> While I'd have liked the LKM retirement to be a little more peaceful and
> with more warning, I'm not all that sad that support has gone for
> building new LKMs that have already got *working* KLD equivalents. I for
> one would like to remove kernel support for LKM's as well.
>
> Cheers,
> -Peter
> --
> Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Netplex Consulting
> "No coffee, No workee!" :-)
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" 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.3.95.981228151101.20004D-100000>