On Wed, 28 May 2003 18:44, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : 1) If the port is updated between builds you end up with two version of > : the port installed. > > True. That's a weakness in the ports system, which is why we have > portupgrade. However, I didn't want to require portupgrade for > something so 'simple'.
To a degree, but IMHO it isn't correct - I don't want to update the version of the port I am using without good reason. ie it should just recompile the code for the port you've already installed which is usually sufficient to get things working again. > : 2) You can't control where the module gets put - arguably this isn't a > : calamity, but I think it makes more sense for the modules to end up in > : /boot/modules, or some analog to it that is in $PREFIX. > > It should go in /boot/kernel, and not into $PREFIX, but that's a > philisophical problem I have with ports. ALL modules should be in /, > imho, since you don't know if the module is required to mount /. Yes, I agree. > : I guess the problem with mandating somewhere in $PREFIX is that the > : loader can't load it, so that's no good. I guess the only choice left is > : /boot/modules. > > /boot/kernel > > : Any comments? > > Well, the patch was mostly a strawman to promote discussions about the > issues. Fair enough. I think the port should install the source for the module in $PREFIX somewhere (well known) and the module should live in /boot/kernel. When things need rebuilding it uses the installed source to do so.. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
