Re: Path to kmods

["Martin S. Weber" <Ephaeton%gmx.net@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 02:36:42PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, der Mouse 
> <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> wrote:
> > It started with kernel modules, the first introduction of dynamic
> > linking to the kernel.  Now I'm seeing it following more or less the
> > same progression.
> There is a step between providing a feature, which is a good thing,
> and deprecating everything else.

That's true but the project moves towards a 'new features, we groom 'em
and old features we drop 'em without proper discussion first' position;
I therefore can see what dM is saying, why, and I fear, too, that this
is going to happen. By the latest developments you can see that we already
stopped caring about backwards compatibility, from the programmers, the
system administrators, the packagers and the users view. So what makes you
think that the "hard to groom because 'nobody' uses it" features will
get fixed? Who is/was fixing the SA bugs? "It's ugly let's drop it". Who
will notice when a non modular generic is broken? "Everybody should be using
modules anyways. It's much leaner!" Who notices if XFree gets broken?
"Use X.Org". Who fixes softdeps? "It is going to be dropped and replaced
by WAPBL". Who fixes interop issues on systems that do not want IPv6 ?
"Better get to like IPv6. ENOPATCH. We don't care about IPv4 only systems".
You can just add "Who cares about static linking" to the list.

-Martin