Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- kernelmodulepackages [2022/09/21 12:44] – LucaPizzamiglio
+++ kernelmodulepackages [2023/10/18 21:04] (current) – Italicise both 'user space' and 'kernel', to help distinguish between the two. GrahamPerrin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== The Problem ======
-While %%FreeBSD%% provide ABI backward compatibility in user space, it doesn't provide Kernel ABI backward compatibility, a harder goal to achieve.
+While %%FreeBSD%% provides ABI-backward compatibility in //user space//, it does not provide //kernel// ABI-backward compatibility, a harder goal to achieve.
 Package repositories are currently provided for every major %%FreeBSD%% release.
-When a new minor %%FreeBSD%% version is released, the previous one is still maintained for 3 months, a time window where two versions of the same major %%FreeBSD%% version needs to be supported
+When a new minor %%FreeBSD%% version is released, maintenance of the previous minor version continues for three months — a time window in which two versions of the same major %%FreeBSD%% version need to be supported.
 During this period, the ports are built for the older minor version, because of the backward compatibility guarantee: newer %%FreeBSD%% version can still safely use packages built using the previous %%FreeBSD%% version.
 This assumption is not necessarily true for kernel module packages, because the backward compatibility is not guaranteed in kernel space.
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 The common scenario, especially for laptop users, is a kernel dump after the upgrade, because the graphic kernel modules are provided as packages.
-There are several ways to solve this issue, but there is no consensus in the community towards an agreed solution
+====== Solutions ======
-Many of us agree to focus on RELEASE first and put less focus on STABLE/CURRENT.
+There are several ways to solve this issue, and two solutions have been identified to fix it.
-===== Kernel ABI compatibility =====
-This solution means that the kernel ABI is backward compatible.
-  * Pros:
-    * fix the issue at the root
-    * Easy to manage, only kernel developers are involved
-  * Cons:
-    * Hard to implement
-    * External kernel modules are out of control
-    * The entire burden is on kernel developers
-    * Kernel ABI backward compatibility could introduce limitations severely limiting the %%FreeBSD%% development
 ===== Kernel module built on installation =====
@@ Line 36: / Line 25: @@
   * ''%%foobar-kmod%%'' (binary package)
   * ''%%foobar-kmod-src%%'' (source package automatically built on install - the name is up for improvements)
-===== Dedicated kernel module package repository =====
-Because the issue is only affecting kernel modules, one solution is to maintain an additional package repository per minor version of %%FreeBSD%% with only kernel modules.
-  * Pros:
-    * solve the issue for RELEASE
-    * small overhead on poudriere (only kernel module are built twice)
-    * minimal pressure on mirror storage requirements
-  * Cons:
-    * pkg has to be aware of Kernel ABI versioning
-    * needs of additional repositories
-    * changes in the package build process
-    * changes in the default repository configuration
 ===== Package repository for minor version =====
@@ Line 63: / Line 40: @@
     * possible changes in the default repository configuration
 **Additional Note**: For the older %%FreeBSD%% release, we could only keep ''%%quarterly%%''. Security patches will be still propagated and there would be less storage pressure (only one ''%%latest%%'')
+====== Others solutions ======
+Those solutions have been evaluated and considered less promising, so they won't be implemented.
+===== Kernel ABI compatibility =====
+This solution means that the kernel ABI is backward compatible.
+  * Pros:
+    * fix the issue at the root
+    * Easy to manage, only kernel developers are involved
+  * Cons:
+    * Hard to implement
+    * External kernel modules are out of control
+    * The entire burden is on kernel developers
+    * Kernel ABI backward compatibility could introduce limitations severely limiting the %%FreeBSD%% development
+===== Dedicated kernel module package repository =====
+Because the issue is only affecting kernel modules, one solution is to maintain an additional package repository per minor version of %%FreeBSD%% with only kernel modules.
+  * Pros:
+    * solve the issue for RELEASE
+    * small overhead on poudriere (only kernel module are built twice)
+    * minimal pressure on mirror storage requirements
+  * Cons:
+    * pkg has to be aware of Kernel ABI versioning
+    * needs of additional repositories
+    * changes in the package build process
+    * changes in the default repository configuration
 ==== Other additional considerations ====