On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:52:15PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote:
> [stuff]
If you insist on going on delete/disable sprees without discussing
beforehand, can you at least, when doing these, go through and make
sure the things you've removed don't leave behind dangling hooks in
the main kernel?
Or
On Aug 2, 5:02pm, Martin Husemann wrote:
} On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:56:50AM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote:
} > Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use
} > compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it
} > out of the GENERIC kernel configurati
Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> This is a compromise between preserving the functionality and reducing
> attack surface for what I hypothesize are a majority of users who do
> not use it. Under this proposal, the code will remain, and still be
> built, and still be usable -- it will just not be enabl
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
I think we can go into a different direction. Instead of disabling the
code - we could turn all compat_ into dynamically loadable modules. I
would profit from it for functional out-of-the-box compat for older
NetBSD releases (a.out executables).
Mo
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:52:15PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote:
> I disagree. The cost of doing a modload is low enough compared to the
> configuration needed to use compat_linux. Just like the command you quoted.
If I wanted OpenBSD, I know were to get it. There is a balance between
pissing off p
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:17:05PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> I think we can go into a different direction. Instead of disabling the
> code - we could turn all compat_ into dynamically loadable modules. I
> would profit from it for functional out-of-the-box compat for older
> NetBSD releases
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:02, Taylor R Campbell a écrit :
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:11:16 +
From: m...@netbsd.org
I can 'cd pkgsrc/www/opera; make install; opera' and get a closed source
browser that works as is, without even realizing it relies on
COMPAT_LINUX to work.
% cd www/opera && bmake pac
p...@whooppee.com (Paul Goyette) writes:
>If you're using /etc/modules.conf, why not just modunload the modules
>you want to remove? (Modules "pushed" from /boot.conf cannot be
>unloaded, as far as I understand.)
It's the loading part that is prohibited :)
--
--
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:02:57PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> % cd www/opera && bmake package
> ERROR: This package has set PKG_FAIL_REASON:
> ERROR: opera-12.16 has an unacceptable license condition:
> ERROR: opera-1200-license
> ERROR: You can mark the license ``opera-1200-license'' as
On 02.08.2017 20:02, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:11:16 +
>> From: m...@netbsd.org
>>
>> I can 'cd pkgsrc/www/opera; make install; opera' and get a closed source
>> browser that works as is, without even realizing it relies on
>> COMPAT_LINUX to work.
>
> % cd www/opera
Le 02/08/2017 à 18:11, m...@netbsd.org a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 01:04:27PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional system
configuration steps of setting up /emul? Is it an onerous burden to
have to modload or add a line in /etc/mod
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:11:16 +
> From: m...@netbsd.org
>
> I can 'cd pkgsrc/www/opera; make install; opera' and get a closed source
> browser that works as is, without even realizing it relies on
> COMPAT_LINUX to work.
% cd www/opera && bmake package
ERROR: This package has set PKG_FAIL_
> Unless some miracle happens, NetBSD will remain an esoteric operating
> system, and we won't have many closed source programs if any.
Wearing my iconoclast hat...
...would that be a bad thing? Those who want Linux do know where to
find it, after all.
/~\ The ASCII
Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>(The code will also continue to be compile-tested as non-module via
>the ALL kernels.)
Maybe we need an ALL kernel for sparc64.
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 07:56:50 -0700
> From: Brian Buhrow
>
> Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use
> compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it
> out of the GENERIC kernel configuration, we lose the regular testing, such
> as it
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 01:04:27PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional system
> configuration steps of setting up /emul? Is it an onerous burden to
> have to modload or add a line in /etc/modules.conf in those steps?
Yes, COMPAT_LINUX i
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:56:50AM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use
> compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it
> out of the GENERIC kernel configuration, we lose the regular testing, such
> as it is
Hello. My feeling is that the cost of requiring a modload to use
compat_linux and compat_linux32 is fine. My concern is that by taking it
out of the GENERIC kernel configuration, we lose the regular testing, such
as it is, with the daily builds. Sure, the module gets built, but it could
> Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional system
> configuration steps of setting up /emul? Is it an onerous burden to
> have to modload or add a line in /etc/modules.conf in those steps?
Not me. Not for me (I build my custom kernels anyway).
> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 18:19:27 +1000
> from: matthew green
>
> > compat_linux
> > compat_linux32
>
> all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't
> include them in your list of targets.
Does anyone use compat_linux without also doing the additional system
configuration
> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 18:19:27 +1000
> from: matthew green
>
> > compat_linux
> > compat_linux32
> > compat_netbsd32
>
> all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't
> include them in your list of targets. saying "modload is OK" is
> not how we treat the GENERIC kernel
>> exec_elf32
>> exec_elf64
>> exec_script
> how else do you expect to be able to run elf binaries or any sort of
> scripts? ie, these should never be targets for removal.
Even elf64 on a 32-bit system, or elf32 on a 64-bit system? (Uhere
"system" refers to userland; sparc32 userland under spar
Le 02/08/2017 à 10:19, matthew green a écrit :
compat_linux
compat_linux32
compat_netbsd32
all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't
include them in your list of targets. saying "modload is OK" is
not how we treat the GENERIC kernel -- if it's OK, then it's OK for
GEN
> compat_linux
> compat_linux32
> compat_netbsd32
all of these are used regularly by many netbsd users. please don't
include them in your list of targets. saying "modload is OK" is
not how we treat the GENERIC kernel -- if it's OK, then it's OK for
GENERIC is how we treat that.
the latter is al
24 matches
Mail list logo