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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030501.190612.124380423.imp>