Re: some PRs

From: Max Laier (max_at_love2party.net)
Date: 07/19/04

  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "kldunload DIAGNOSTIC idea..."
    To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
    Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:55:13 +0200
    
    
    

    On Monday 19 July 2004 16:13, M. Warner Losh wrote:
    > In message: <20040719075952.GG57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl>
    >
    > Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> writes:
    > : On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:58:25AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
    > : +> : Even if it is used by some programms, I don't see it in the base
    > : system. +> : It can be always implemented as a kernel module and
    > : maintained outside +> : the tree.
    > : +>
    > : +> Given that it is implemented in this driver in about 20 lines, I think
    > : +> that it makes sense to have it in the base. Suggesting it be
    > : +> maintained outside of the tree is just plain silly. It should be
    > : +> brought in or abadoned.
    > :
    > : It isn't even used by one of our 11000 ports and you want to bring it
    > : into base system? We don't have other devices in the tree, which are
    > : actually used by some ports. I still think, that if a port which is using
    > : /dev/full will be created, device should be maintained there.
    > : EOT.
    >
    > I guess my point is that that creates so much more work that it seems
    > like overkill. We often put things into the base system for
    > compatibility, but rely on out of system things for higher level
    > functionality.

    The question to me is, do we really want to support (read fertilize) such a
    stupid thing? Given the chance that once we do support it people will use it.
    In my opinion it is bad to integrate something into base that we agree is
    nothing one should ever have created (at least that's my reading of the
    thread so far). I see no user-pessure for this.

    I do agree however, that suggesting to maintain something that cannot be done
    in userland outside the tree is not a good solution. Still, I feel like this
    is something that belongs into the linux compat code, at best (maybe behind
    an "option LINUX_STUPIDITY" ....)

    -- 
    /"\  Best regards,			| mlaier@freebsd.org
    \ /  Max Laier				| ICQ #67774661
     X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/	| mlaier@EFnet
    / \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign		| Against HTML Mail and News
    
    



  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "kldunload DIAGNOSTIC idea..."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: cvsup multiple RELENGs?
      ... >just changing my RELENG in the supfile and blowing away the tree each time ... a different base system ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: some PRs
      ... +> I don't claim that /dev/full is useful just for the sake of it. ... Even if it is used by some programms, I don't see it in the base system. ... Suggesting it be ... maintained outside of the tree is just plain silly. ...
      (freebsd-arch)
    • Re: cvs question
      ... What command did you use to check out the files, and what tree are ... since that is not what cvs does by default. ... thing I did on the machine after installing the base system [from dist ... Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org ...
      (freebsd-hackers)
    • Re: portsnap and cvsup for rebuilding world - Which one?
      ... the base system ... csup will update anything cvsup can in checkout mode, so you can check out a src tree, a ports tree, a doc tree, etc. with csup. ...
      (freebsd-stable)
    • To customise Fedora Core completly
      ... The Idea is to provide a Stable Fast and Userfriendly disc. ... Have support for graphically buning CD/DVDs, ... The first request is to find out just for a base system no gui keeping it LSB ...
      (Fedora)