Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:43:34AM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:

If we can manage to support FreeBSD and Linux from one codebase, surely supporting 2.4 and 2.6 isn't too difficult?


It for sure is possible.
However the DRM codebase proves that it's incapable of even doing BSD
support properly (eg without the right abstractions but instead fouling up
the entire codebase to the point of unreadability). That gives me no
confidence the "keep 2.4 support" will not turn out to be at least as
ugly/broken/wrong.

Well... I think there's some confusion regarding how much of the macro-itis in the current DRM is related to support for freebsd and how much is just a reasonable idea taken too far.


Most of the abstractions that you're complaining about existed prior to the addition of freebsd support, and right now, Dave Airlie is doing good work returning the codebase to something less obscure.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned 2.4 support is of primary importance to the people who actually use this code, so I will work to see it retained.

Keith



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel

Reply via email to