From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Nov 9 22:12:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 508) id 8945737B401; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:12:11 -0800 (PST) To: imp@bsdimp.com, julian@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bluetooth Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20021109.213756.23012360.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-Id: <20021110061211.8945737B401@hub.freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:12:11 -0800 (PST) From: julian@FreeBSD.ORG (Julian Elischer) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [note my quote corrected] > : > : > I'd go one step farther. I'd say that it would be insane to have more > : > than one bluetooth stack for FreeBSD. I'd go farther and say that it > : > would be insane to have more than one bluetooth stack for *BSD. > : > Bluetooth is too big and specailized for there to be much benefit in > : > competing stacks. > : > : The NetBSD stack is more an idea than code at this stage.. are you > : suggesting that we do not commit our working stack because they might > : sometime write a stack? > If the code is so horrible, why commit it at all? FreeBSD isn't a > dumping ground for any old code that people happen to come up with. Our code is not terrible on the contrary the Netgaph bluetooth code is really very clean I think. The NETBSD code is what doesn;t work yet. > You can't argue that we should commit it to FreeBSD, because it is > about ready and at the same time argue that the code sucks, so you > don't have to do any work. You can't have your cake and eat it too. > Either it is just about ready for prime time and you need to properly > integrate it into the tree, or it is an experimental hack that has no > business being in the tree. It can't be both. Oh for gods sake Warner.. I just misttyped NETGRAPH instead of NETBSD.. Your whole argulemt is about a typo so far. > I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't commit this code because NetBSD > might someday come up with a better stack. I'm saying that we need to > be open to sharing with NetBSD/OpenBSD. I'm saying that you need to > be open to integrating it completely into the tree. I'm saying that > we should make efforts to allow our NetBSD bretheren to pick up the > stack. There is a netgraph port for NetBSD. They haven't taken it because it wasn't in BSD4.4 (they are purists you know). I don't see why we shouldn't use appropriate technologies within FreeBSD just because NetBSD doesn't have them? > Didn't you read the rest of my post? FreeBSD has plenty of examples > where code was committed prematurely and then it rotted to > worthlessness. Sometimes this was because there were multiple similar > things in the tree, other times the original developer fell off the > face of the earth. In any event, it has caused us problems. This is not such a case. > BTW, looking at the stack it appears to me that this code is getting > close to being real enough for inclusion in the tree. Don't take my > comments above as thinking that code in question is horrible. I'm > just pointing out how contradictory your arguments are, which is why > people are giving you a hard time about how you want to integrate the > code. > Warner > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message