re: Fixed modular kernel path and different kernels

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, matthew green wrote:

> please consider lukem's proposal from a large number of years
> ago where the kernel + modules are considered a unit and are
> stored together (in a tarball?  in a subdir?  details..)
>
> doing it like this enables all sorts of useful things to be
> done besides testing kernel+modules.

I remember all those discussions, and I also remember that nothing ever 
came out of them.

This was an attempt to get _some_ of the benefit with _minimal_ cost and 
_minimal_ bike-shedding.

Given the limitations of this proposal, and reactions to it, I will not 
be committing these changes.  Perhaps someone(tm) will move forward with 
a version of these changes that addresses the limitations (ie, does all 
the heavy lifting in the boot loader), but it is unlikely that that 
someone will be me.

Feel free to restart the discussions on lukem's proposal - I rather 
doubt that we'll get any closer to consensus than we did on the initial 
rounds of discussions.



+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:      |
| (Retired)        | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com   |
| Kernel Developer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+