modular -> monolithic

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:09:00 +0100
Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de> wrote:

> On Jan 21, 08 16:43:05 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > - it's less likely to break anything else (read: in the xserver or libs)
> > > - it's easy to go back (just save the one driver file before)
> > > - build time is *much* less than with the monolithic tree.
> > >   This especially holds for drivers, which really compile fast.
> > 
> > rpm --install
> > rpm --erase
> 
> I thought we were talking about source repositories here - not packaged
> binaries...

Most of the testers I get nowdays with the kernel code couldn't compile
hello world. Many of them are very happy to try new kernel rpms.

> I agree that the Makefiles could have more intelligence. Then, again,
> this is automake.

> > And having all the drivers in the build forces that to happen. In kernel
> 
> Yes, and who forces the drivers to actually be built?

We do test builds. You feed Andrew (the patch master) a patch that breaks
drivers you get an earfull. You keep doing it and your patches get very
low priority.

> Right. I forgot. You do not have an upstream.
> But what happens if you pull some change that magically doesn't build
> all drivers any longer? I guess you just get rid of it, and ignore it
> until it does.

If its an oversight you patch it up if its a larger problem it probably
gets reverted. Usually these happen with obscure code - so someone will
complain you broke the Amiga 68K port ;). We very rarely achieve
perfection and not breaking anything.

Alan