From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 13 11:21:27 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42613106566C for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:21:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from agoca80@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f212.google.com (mail-ew0-f212.google.com [209.85.219.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB858FC25 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:21:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from agoca80@gmail.com) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so3066854ewy.43 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iMfrxzyup3uAQX1GTrCmMLgg/Pw04STWrwpBoLzBklA=; b=ofn64xeW+ZqcmlUeF3euqiZoANKaIAykQNEgLOvo+hyE8pV/kgw2MSb20g+yx+SWEX tDL+H9/6xUIAvsnaJ3iJZdi0PWprq5Fy63j3vbp7HyottKBHaPX61/FGxFUgR2wpKEj1 cAvkPvxS5pbaS9DS1bd30v21WuSxjPK33IPok= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=Smi3UshYEOrGypmFiePVYGUsVKkFxPfF+K8a9ZXlIBHfJeIv0+uhaPeueiKjqfS33q CETXBth5fXePwSmuQxWxZBiIdUxC8E51/4gBWp0KklRAZjKgQ7jXxbgCxNOY/9Jo6udX GzpLx7sdaRBLQ2NDlcvdFVYGE1wWEtqo2VE7s= Received: by 10.210.40.10 with SMTP id n10mr5532262ebn.23.1244892085788; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.2? (255.pool85-49-178.dynamic.orange.es [85.49.178.255]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm1471235eya.39.2009.06.13.04.21.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Antxon To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20090613095738.GH48776@hoeg.nl> References: <538f43900906120823w388f1c63ic8d0194017faca6d@mail.gmail.com> <20090612165518.GA15530@phenom.cordula.ws> <20090612172740.GA1952@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090612175206.GA77895@freebsd.org> <20090612180906.GA12679@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090612193614.GF48776@hoeg.nl> <20090612202839.GA93343@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090612203032.GG48776@hoeg.nl> <20090613095738.GH48776@hoeg.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso8859-1" Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:21:50 +0000 Message-Id: <1244892110.1104.12.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.0 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: RFC: C version of devd daemon. 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, 13 Jun 2009 11:21:27 -0000 El sáb, 13-06-2009 a las 11:57 +0200, Ed Schouten escribió: > * Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote: > > That's a different story. Reading man pages is not a functional > > requirement, depending on the point of view. A system *can* run fine > > even without manual pages (and the corresponding reader/formatter) > > installed. > > And a typical FreeBSD webserver won't be affected by devd not being > installed. I read a lot of manpages, but I think I've only changed devd > related config files once or twice in my entire life. But we're drifting > off. > > Rewriting devd in C, just because Clang doesn't support C++, is not a > good argument. Clang itself is also written in C++. Even I (the > maintainer of the clangbsd branch in SVN) think that a compiler that is > not able to bootstrap itself cannot be considered a serious replacement > for GCC at this time. > Those are really good reasons. C++ is still needed to compile Clang, but clang it's not the only compiler available at the moment. It's just about choices. Is it worth to rewrite devd it in C? As I already did that, it is not up to my to answer the question. Antxon.