At 9:02 PM +0200 10/4/02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >There are numerous architectural issues which have never been >fixed in vinum, and one or more of these bits now. > >Whoever loves vinum will have to chase it/them down and fix it. > >If I receive patches or requests for changes to GEOM as result >of this, they will be evaluated in good faith. > >Worst case you will have the option to use: > > options NOGEOM > options vinum
I know nothing about vinum and only a little about GEOM, so I have no opinion on which should be fixed to work with the other, and I'm reluctant to get drawn into that battle anyway. However, I do think that if it isn't easy to get the two of them to work together nicely, then we should enforce the above options in the source code. Ie, if someone tries to compile a kernel with both GEOM and vinum turned on, then the compile should fail with some suitable error message. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
