From owner-freebsd-standards Fri Mar 22 4: 1:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from hda.hda.com (host65.hda.com [63.104.68.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E421B37B419; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:01:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2MC2fv03440; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:02:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from dufault) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:02:41 -0500 From: Peter Dufault To: Mike Barcroft Cc: Garrett Wollman , standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Garrett's POSIX versions patch for review Message-ID: <20020322070241.A3411@hda.hda.com> References: <20020226.224449.28794535.imp@village.org> <20020227184645.K47808-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020227144359.R31007@espresso.q9media.com> <20020318021728.D56122@espresso.q9media.com> <200203181926.g2IJQEo33811@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20020320161625.A5344@hda.hda.com> <20020321221533.B80338@espresso.q9media.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020321221533.B80338@espresso.q9media.com>; from mike@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:15:33PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:15:33PM -0500, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Peter Dufault writes: > > It was to build the kernel with newer interfaces and test them > > by occasionally setting user-space _POSIX_VERSION into the "future", > > leaving _POSIX_VERSION at the release. It seemed like a good idea > > at the time, as bumping _POSIX_VERSION in general seemed > > likely to autoconf in things you don't expect. > > Why don't we make the sysctl that it controls writable? This will > allow developers the ability to test new POSIX features without > recompiling their kernels. I don't see that as needed. The user _POSIX_VERSION should cleanly select new features, what the kernel supports shouldn't need to be modified. I think anything with _KPOSIX_VERSION <= _POSIX_VERSION is tested, in regular use, and can be unconditional (at least by that feature test), while _KPOSIX_VERSION > _POSIX_VERSION features are not ready for universal use and can be enabled by advancing _POSIX_VERSION. Is this obviated by the notion of a -current? Maybe, I like the notion of a _KPOSIX_VERSION as what should be there is well defined, but I'm inactive. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Fail-Safe systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message