06.07.2018 1:21, John Baldwin wrote: > Yes, this is a change though I find it the logical outcome of the original > change > to move away from MODULES_WITH_WORLD. And to be clear, Matt certainly only > intended to use MODULE_TIED in a few places, but I think tagging all those > places will be cumbersome and tedious compared to just doing it in this way. > I > think this will also tie into something I proposed earlier in a commit reply > and > that I also brought up at BSDCan which is that I think that kernel modules in > ports should install their sources and build glue to some location we choose > (e.g. /usr/local/sys/modules/<foo>) and that we should support a variable > folks > can set in their kernel config file similar to MODULES_OVERRIDE that is a list > of local modules to recompile and install into /boot/kernel along with other > modules (and that these recompiled modules would be TIED). The binary module > from the package would still be present in /boot/modules, but the tied module > in /boot/kernel would be preferred and used instead when it exists (our > existing > module_path already does this last part). This would replace the existing > PORTS_MODULES but in a way that is more graceful and works with packages, not > just ports IMO.
I'm not sure I understand the topic quite right, but please do not drop MODULES_WITH_WORLD support at it allows us to quickly rebuild the kernel in case of slight changes of its config file not changing ABI and/or similar source changes without HUGE modules compilation overhead. Also, we should not use /usr/local/sys/modules/<foo> as /usr/local can be inaccessible for the loader. Better use /boot/modules/local or /boot/local as /boot is guaranteed to be accessible. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
