From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 18 16:51:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472B016A4CE for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:51:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from khazad.dyndns.org (86.Red-80-24-13.pooles.rima-tde.net [80.24.13.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC08743D31 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:51:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rmh@khazad.dyndns.org) Received: from rmh by khazad.dyndns.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BmEt4-0004SP-00; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:51:42 +0200 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:51:42 +0200 From: Robert Millan To: Giorgos Keramidas Message-ID: <20040718165142.GA17142@khazad.dyndns.org> References: <20040716220848.A35405@armor.freesurf.fr> <20040718031554.GF1070@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040718133330.GA21009@khazad.dyndns.org> <20040718151649.GA53675@gothmog.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040718151649.GA53675@gothmog.gr> Organisation: free as in freedom User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i Sender: cc: Nicolas Souch cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some PRs X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:51:43 -0000 On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:16:49PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2004-07-18 15:33, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > I think it's useful for compatibility. > > In general, I'm not against compatibility. However, what's the end of > this route? To create one special device node in /dev for every > possible errno value? :-( I don't claim that /dev/full is useful just for the sake of it. Your argument (that having a device just for each errno value is silly) is something I basicaly agree with. But if some applications depend on it, it's still helpful for portability. I don't know what support for native compatibility is expected or planned for FreeBSD, but I know you have a Ports Collection with thousands of packages, and this might minimaly reduce the work of your port maintainers. IMHO, you should ask the people working in the Ports Collection for their opinion before taking a decision. (Note this patch comes from the context of the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD porting effort, in which we port Debian GNU/Linux packages, which are a bit more likely to introduce Linuxisms than the average candidate for FreeBSD Ports. Thus, our requirements might differ somewhat.) -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)