Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:29:14 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, current@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: removed COMPAT_43 from GENERIC (and other configs) Message-ID: <4493068A.30602@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <3223.1150403817@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <3223.1150403817@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4491C2F0.6000007@rogers.com>, Mike Jakubik writes: > > >>What about COMPAT_43TTY? Is this still needed, how exactly does it >>affect the system? > > > It adds a bunch of ancient-compatible ioctls to the kernel. > > It is, as a principle, not needed, but thanks to the many variants > of "sh configure" employed in usr/ports, a quite large number of > ports go "Ohh, this is BSD, I'd better use the old ioctls" and > break if you don't offer them. > One thing to keep in mind is that upgrade compatibility is very important. Not everyone lives at the tip of the tree, and not everyone wants to, or even can, recompile all of their apps for an upgrade. Making COMPAT_43 and COMPAT_43TTY be optional is fine, and fixing as many ports as possible not to rely on it is fine too, but removing the options from the kernel will be a mistake right now. People were running 2.2.x apps well into the 4.x lifecycle, and people are running 4.x apps now well into the 6.x lifecycle. If you make their lives harder, you'll make it a lot easier to justify switching to something else. If you want to deprecate and ultimately removethese options, set a 2-3 year timeline for it, and heavily advertise it. Anything shorter will do more harm than good. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4493068A.30602>