From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 13 12:48:57 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 4A50A106564A for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:48:57 +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 C5AA48FC12 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:48:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from agoca80@gmail.com) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so3097783ewy.43 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:48:55 -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:cc :in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version :x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rc48Rp4M54waOWVC9lI84X8I9UK25x3YODWEGysuzEQ=; b=RV2U7Tvqw/gcdYumVIIcg+Jv1U31aEdnyrNRknh00CnDdO9/TSHVGOM9g8jmzejVbI vX9ffxnaVoNIfhHLbbOpIH4Atyb7+Iza4f9UQJBNRqkkQoYZKgYUxrOL/1LvJufVLQTI FVNjpIhYy7CHr3WXP8uCVo0/AbDJq9v8wReao= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=LTxT8J9LaeDvSz3iM6FdAtGbhf1UV1WxKwDRiSY92uvpc+vK0P9Xa1WKc07P81Uvbq NlfvgRWK4erE+pMk426iF7/YsNLAYVI2A8wnz+lnApIxiwpxThs0CRBBHXOeOMbdpX8L y/9BaSQ/Tbd38/2bnqsUdK/L7AvKjBn6vdadE= Received: by 10.210.80.17 with SMTP id d17mr5611241ebb.57.1244897335683; Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:48:55 -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 5sm2883803eyh.20.2009.06.13.05.48.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Antxon To: "army.of.root" In-Reply-To: <4A339E54.80109@googlemail.com> 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> <4A339E54.80109@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso8859-1" Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:49:18 +0000 Message-Id: <1244897358.1392.2.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.0 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 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 12:48:57 -0000 El sáb, 13-06-2009 a las 14:40 +0200, army.of.root escribió: > 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! I have already sent the files to Edward Tomasz, as he offered himself as a helping hand. Thanks to everybody that offered help or advice. Antxon.