Re: some PRs
From: Robert Millan (zeratul2_at_wanadoo.es)
Date: 07/18/04
- Previous message: Robert Millan: "Re: some PRs"
- In reply to: Giorgos Keramidas: "Re: some PRs"
- Next in thread: Kris Kennaway: "Re: some PRs"
- Reply: Kris Kennaway: "Re: some PRs"
- Reply: Pawel Jakub Dawidek: "Re: some PRs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:51:42 +0200 To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:16:49PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2004-07-18 15:33, Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's useful for compatibility.
>
> In general, I'm not against compatibility. However, what's the end of
> this route? To create one special device node in /dev for every
> possible errno value? :-(
I don't claim that /dev/full is useful just for the sake of it. Your argument
(that having a device just for each errno value is silly) is something I
basicaly agree with.
But if some applications depend on it, it's still helpful for portability.
I don't know what support for native compatibility is expected or planned for
FreeBSD, but I know you have a Ports Collection with thousands of packages,
and this might minimaly reduce the work of your port maintainers. IMHO, you
should ask the people working in the Ports Collection for their opinion before
taking a decision.
(Note this patch comes from the context of the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD porting
effort, in which we port Debian GNU/Linux packages, which are a bit more
likely to introduce Linuxisms than the average candidate for FreeBSD Ports.
Thus, our requirements might differ somewhat.)
-- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion) _______________________________________________ freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Robert Millan: "Re: some PRs"
- In reply to: Giorgos Keramidas: "Re: some PRs"
- Next in thread: Kris Kennaway: "Re: some PRs"
- Reply: Kris Kennaway: "Re: some PRs"
- Reply: Pawel Jakub Dawidek: "Re: some PRs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
- Re: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64
... > programs running with 32-bTT, ... approaches involving compatibility
syscalls / libc hacks. ... pretty sure there's no way to do this without completely breaking
the ABI. ... This means lots and lots and lots of patches in the ports tree. ...
(freebsd-current) - Re: Compatibility Between Releases Policy
... I recall reading once upon a time that FreeBSD won't break compatibility for
the duration of a major point release. ... Ports astonish me more often than FreeBSD to
be sure. ... (freebsd-questions) - Re: some PRs
... >> In general, I'm not against compatibility. ... > should ask the
people working in the Ports Collection for their opinion before ... > (Note this patch
comes from the context of the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD porting ... (freebsd-arch) - Re: Experience with a 6321 IC?
... > with a WMS System 3 or 4 cpu. ... They seem to have some compatibility
... Solenoid ports are not initialized correctly. ... > you use a System 6 cpu
and seem to work fine with all other WMS pcbs but I ... (rec.games.pinball)