From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 13 12:40:56 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 84E6510656D2 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:40:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from army.of.root@googlemail.com) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.153]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F248FC12 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:40:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from army.of.root@googlemail.com) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 22so811378fge.12 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:40:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GTPKBj+cO9sLY9oG4bvcbADbjxtgOh2oK/iGyvqT5Vk=; b=vGsNujxR5BNZHYaKuUXqaBQRs7vJmJ5peiZlmxlYYoCPM+g+UPGu8dD2iSB/7cQsDc Q8gtH7eLud9Yuk3hTOpfvgMRwmcrvKTZwEr36ISnVKGCqk0pt2TN9v9as1U1fFph3icT hPwa5/VwbKGI4XXXlQbFRBvuX/DnbHBSJIr9k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qIo8MwzbsyyKWpBUIJ+Vh7+XhYgSKtDCzJ9QjV/C0GfX6gsDf9nYuOjPNBF4qZd64V BP4OEu8XgvpH6iupYWcyXsxHNZgv9MISeWo+C0ns3p8vpFHeqI262UiJzTHKj2U2pJQf 27haNyAQUBcrTKnPeF1lxiCFPvL1QXoMMHYiI= Received: by 10.86.57.9 with SMTP id f9mr4953749fga.33.1244896854844; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.24? (p5486E017.dip.t-dialin.net [84.134.224.23]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm5914835fge.29.2009.06.13.05.40.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A339E54.80109@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:40:52 +0200 From: "army.of.root" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090429) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Antxon 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> <1244892110.1104.12.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1244892110.1104.12.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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 12:40:56 -0000 Antxon wrote: > 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. > Hi, it seems consistent to use C, especially when theres only one program left thats C++ (after groff is replaced with mdoc). And since devd is only a few loc it does not seem reasonable to argue with complexity. It does not cost anything (its already done), so why not just seriously consider using the C implemetation, when its code quality is as good. @Anxton: Could you post it somewhere? - It would really help this conversation if people could look at the actual code. best regards and many thanks for supporting *BSD you all!