On Fri, 16 May 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Cyril Plisko wrote: >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Garrett D'Amore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm wondering, what thought has anyone seriously given to the notion of >>> "shrinking" ON? >> >> +1 >> >> One of the things to spin off can be device drivers (I believe that >> idea was discussed in the past already). It could serve number of >> purposes - shrinking ON, keeping all the drivers DDI clean (since they >> will be outside of the ON) and making it easy for different >> distributions to update drivers. > > Where would they spin off into ? > > Not being in ON doesn't automatically make the DDI clean they can still > use non DDI functions - it just means they might break when someone > changes one of them (where as when in ON they would be more likely to > get fixed). > > All device drivers ?
Argh. Blanket "thou shalt <not> ..." is bad. > > Just some of them ? And now for the nitty-gritty details. > > Why device drivers ? What is so special about them ? How is ON holding > them back from development ? Or how are they holding ON back ? Not necessarily holding back development - but sometimes maintenance. Having a separate driver gate means you _can_, if you so choose, write your driver that the same module works fine on, say, S9, S10, onnv, ... hence only ever creating _one_ release of it. No backporting, synchronous patch releases. sounds too good to be true. FrankH. > > BTW we should probably be having this discussion on on-discuss@ instead. Agreed. FrankH. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
