Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 21:47:43 -0600 From: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> To: Q <q_dolan@yahoo.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers? Message-ID: <3ED4315F.8080709@btc.adaptec.com> In-Reply-To: <1054092793.1429.39.camel@boxster> References: <C90CF9CA-9040-11D7-941E-0003937E39E0@mac.com> <200305281147.53271.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <1054090968.1429.10.camel@boxster> <3ED4294B.4040108@btc.adaptec.com> <1054092793.1429.39.camel@boxster>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Q wrote: > Don't overreact. Heh. I live this hell every day with Linux in my day job. > I'm not suggesting taking the linux approach of > versioning every module. But rather allowing the loader or a module > (most likely a 3rd part or from a port) the ability to make a decision > based on some internal revision/date based "version" as to whether it is > safe to proceed to load. Ideally, every API would be versioned, and developers would be careful to architect their work so that the interfaces would be stable and gratuitous incompatibilities would be avoided. Alas, that is not always the case. > > I am thinking of ports like rtc, ltmdm or Vmware here.. where it is not > uncommon that they require reinstalling after an upgrade. I have > experienced kernel panics on several occasions from out of date vmware > kernel modules. I'm really of the opinion that these ports should either live in the sys/ tree, or that magic should be devised to make sure that they are built along with the rest of the modules. Scott > > Seeya...Q > > On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 13:13, Scott Long wrote: > >>Q wrote: >> >>>I have been burnt by this in the past also. I think that it would be >>>useful if you could allow kernel modules to be bound to a particular >>>kernel "version/date/whatever", and have external modules refuse to load >>>and/or complain if the kernel is upgraded. This should prevent >>>unnecessary kernel panics when you upgrade. The Linux kernel has been >>>doing this for years. >>> >>>Seeya...Q >>> >> >>For the love of god, no! This creates a support nightmare. What >>happens when a user installs his system and recompiles the kernel >>without changing the source at all? His modules won't work, but >>there is no reason why they shouldn't. What if one of those now >>non-working modules is a driver for his hard drive? >> >>Scott >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 12:17, Daniel O'Connor wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Tue, 27 May 2003 22:13, David Leimbach wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>However the idea is that all GPL infected stuff be isolated, allowing a >>>>>>fully working kernel without GPL stuff in there. >>>>> >>>>>Sounds like a "kernel module" is the way to go then. Perhaps it could >>>>>exist in the ports tree instead of the mainline kernel sources :). I >>>>>know >>>>>I'd be happy with that... the problem is hosting the driver since I am >>>>>sure >>>>>"patching" it won't be enough to map the linux innards to freebsd's. >>>> >>>>There are already a number of kernel modules in the ports tree (eg nvidia >>>>drivers, ltmdm modem driver, aureal sound driver, etc). >>>> >>>>The only downside is that there are no hooks into the build process so you >>>>have to be VERY careful when you update your kernel, or you get panics :( >>>> >>>>(I found this recently, some change broke all of my 3rd party modules and >>>>caused panics when I tried to load them). >>>> >>>>I would really like some way of getting external modules rebuilt at the same >>>>time as buildkernel and friends, otherwise you have to remember to rebuild >>>>the affected ports, and it is a pain in the ass. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ED4315F.8080709>