From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 17 08:37:40 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32FA616A47D for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:37:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (eva.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.10.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8354143D45 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:37:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from xdivac02@eva.fit.vutbr.cz) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k5H8bYsm085066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:37:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from xdivac02@localhost) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.13.7/8.13.3/Submit) id k5H8bVdo085063; Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:37:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:37:31 +0200 From: Divacky Roman To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20060617083731.GB84611@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <3223.1150403817@critter.freebsd.dk> <4493068A.30602@samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4493068A.30602@samsco.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.54 on 147.229.10.14 Cc: Mike Jakubik , Poul-Henning Kamp , current@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: removed COMPAT_43 from GENERIC (and other configs) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:37:40 -0000 On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:29:14PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > 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. while I tend to agree you have to see that COMPAT_43 ensures in-kernel compatibility layer so there should be no (user-space) app breakage. and noone is removing COMPAT_43TTY now roman