Ok, I agree. List, Tomo, please ignore this patch and review/apply version 2 instead. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Dan Mick <dan.mick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 08/26/2013 05:03 PM, ronnie sahlberg wrote: >> >> You mean you prefer the previous version of the patch always builds >> tgtd with modular backends ? >> >> If so, that is fine with me. I just thought there was some pushback on >> that approach so I did this patch as a compromise. > > > I didn't see the pushback and so was surprised at this latest revision, and > was hoping whoever had that opinion would join in. But my opinion is that > "bs modules always dynamic" is the right answer; I think you had it right in > the prior version. > > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Dan Mick <dan.mick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> I think this is a bad idea; this will encourage package builders to build >>> a >>> version which cannot be updated/new backends supplied, which removes a >>> lot >>> of the advantage of building with .so backends to begin with. Why are we >>> abandoning dynamic-by-default? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
