Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 18:55:14 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, ache@nagual.ru, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Niklas Hallqvist: archivers/hpack.non-usa.only Message-ID: <E0vi9i6-0003xU-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Jan 1997 16:19:23 PST." <199701090019.QAA02492@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> References: <199701090019.QAA02492@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199701090019.QAA02492@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Satoshi Asami writes: : (1) Change the port in a way that is compatible with other operating : systems (*) using BSD or __44bsd__ (see David O'Brien's mail), and : send a patch to the author. Because of (*), the change is more : likely to be accepted, and the patch can be deleted in the next : release. I like this the most... : (2) Protect all the changes with __FreeBSD__, and send a patch to the : author. The patch is less likely to be accepted than (1) but at : least it's not intrusive WRT other OS's so there is a chance to be : accepted. When OpenBSD guys come along, we change some of them to : __FreeBSD__ || __OpenBSD__. I like this less. : (3) Just change the ports to compile on FreeBSD. Don't send the : changes back to the author. The port may or may not work with the : next release. However, this port has a better chance to work on : OpenBSD than (2). I don't like this. : (4) Same as (1), but don't send back the patch to the author. See : disclaimer on (3). Nor this... : What does this mean? Not much, I don't think we can make a firm : "policy" on this, these are just for people to keep in mind. One : thing to note is that (2), if we you don't send the patch to the : author, is a clear no-winner. Agreed. The other thing you can do is say something like: #if defined( unix ) || defined( __unix__ ) || defined( __unix ) #include <sys/param.h> #endif .... #if defined( BSD ) && BSD >= 199xxx /* Whatever */ #endif I would argue that BSD being defined is only useful on unix machines, so this should be acceptible to most authors. I agree that this means there is much more work that needs to happen for each machine that otherwise would have happened. I'm not sure I like adding a new __bsd44__ macro definition. Something about it strikes me as wrong, but I can't place my finger on it. A question of policy: Would it be acceptible to have the __FreeBSD__ || __OpenBSD__ case in the tree as a transitory phase between the current abuses of __FreeBSD__ and the future where such abuses don't happen? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0vi9i6-0003xU-00>