From owner-cvs-all Thu Jun 29 8:34:22 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from coredump.lovett.com (hub.lovett.com [216.60.121.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E26A37B667; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:34:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from ade by coredump.lovett.com with local (Exim 3.14 #1) id 137gK5-0008L6-00; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:33:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:33:49 -0500 From: Ade Lovett To: David O'Brien Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Diking out ports a.out support (was Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/sidplay Makefile) Message-ID: <20000629103349.D31932@lovett.com> References: <200006230927.CAA23802@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000623080800.F77304@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <3953573F.7B95B83E@FreeBSD.org> <20000623094306.I44870@FreeBSD.org> <20000628221306.G31775@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000628221306.G31775@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 10:13:06PM -0700 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 10:13:06PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 09:43:06AM -0500, Ade Lovett wrote: > > Agreed. At the same time, any remnants of PORTOBJFORMAT, or a.out > > shared library names in PLISTs, or aout in general needs to go > > (adios 2.x) > > Since we already have the machanism in place, I fail to see what we gain > by diking it out. Since we have a method, there is no reason to not give > the 2.x users a fighting chance of getting a port to build and install. Well, in my eyes, it is extra "cruft" that is no longer needed, since it's stated quite clearly that ports only supports -stable and -current and that anything else is a fluke. Second, we're almost certainly going to be visiting a large number of PLISTs in the not to distant future with the "famous" NOPORTDOCS hack, which is already being used elsewhere to manage PLISTS more effectively. Third, someone staying with an a.out machine is doing so for reasons of extreme stability -- adding new-fangled versions of ports would go against that stability. Fourth, killing a.out support just after 4.1-RELEASE means that we'll have had 7 releases (3.1 and up) since an purely a.out FreeBSD system existed. That's an awful long time to keep legacy around. Finally, I would imagine that most ports going in now rely on other ports where there is no a.out support, so there's going to be very little chance of them ever working under a.out Having said all of the above, I'm willing to go with the majority. (Perhaps we need a freebsd-portsarch.. just kidding :) -aDe [who has a 2.2-STABLE firewall box back in England, with 9 ports installed on it, which never gets updated other than in src/] -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message