From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Nov 17 02:24:19 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A0EA31154 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 02:24:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alfred@freebsd.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EC31AA8; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 02:24:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alfred@freebsd.org) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-2.local (unknown [IPv6:2601:645:8004:7515:6d56:aa8e:b437:27b3]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C87A345A921; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:24:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? To: Dan Partelly , Allan Jude References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <564A0DD4.7030505@interlinked.me> <564A0F71.7060700@freebsd.org> <7644107F-8C34-431D-9367-680A609BE7F5@rdsor.ro> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Alfred Perlstein Organization: FreeBSD Message-ID: <564A8FD2.8090908@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:24:18 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7644107F-8C34-431D-9367-680A609BE7F5@rdsor.ro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 02:24:19 -0000 On 11/16/15 9:39 AM, Dan Partelly wrote: >> How big of a donor you are to the FreeBSD Foundation does not affect the >> committable of your code. Having code ready to commit, vs just a vague >> plan, does help your solution win out over another proposed solution though > > Then surely you will salvage something from a lot of GsoCs where people wrote code with various degrees of success, only > to never hear again of anintegration, or an evaluation of that code, and possible integration. > > One which directly interests me: what happened to the BSD libctf code from GSoc ? Was the resulted code evaluated ? If > it falls short, where it does ? Can it be salvaged ? > > Libxo might be a fine facility to have for some corner cases, but it doesnt solve the problem of binary code reuse in general. Might have solved it fast for Juniper. It is yet another stick into a scaffolding of shell scripts which should have been replaced years ago with proper libraries, services and IPC, opening the road towards modern service management, service frameworks , fault management , fault response and transactional OS databases > > I continue to believe this is or will become shortly an issue of utmost importance , one which is worthy of the status of a FreeBSD > initiated and sponsored object. > Yes. We will get there. -Alfred (who pushed for libxo as well)