Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:20:24 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: OptionalObsoleteFiles.inc completeness Message-ID: <4FC44E88.3020409@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120528220519.GA38860@hades.panopticon> References: <20120527140541.GL2987@hades.panopticon> <4FC34059.9070702@FreeBSD.org> <20120528195218.GA85856@hades.panopticon> <4FC3D915.9020100@FreeBSD.org> <20120528222357.00002f43@unknown> <4FC3E006.2060303@FreeBSD.org> <20120528220519.GA38860@hades.panopticon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/28/2012 3:05 PM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > * Doug Barton (dougb@FreeBSD.org) wrote: > >>>> this issue. The numerous problems we've had with it ever since it was >>>> introduced seem to bear me out. :) >>> >>> Can you list them? A missing obsolete file doesn't count. >> >> It doesn't catch things it needs to >> It catches things it shouldn't >> The current incarnation is painfully slow (so I've heard) >> ... and the biggest problem ... >> It needs to be updated manually > > Pretty true. Still I'd like to fix what we have now, than not to > have a useful feature. A question was raised about named.conf, so I answered it. A question was raised about why I don't like/use Obsolete, so I answered it. At no point did I say "don't work on Obsolete." That said, my concern about this is the same as my concern about effort being placed into other less-than-desirable solutions. 1. The effort could be better placed elsewhere 2. The fact that $SOMEONE is working on $SOMETHING gives people a warm fuzzy feeling that has a tendency to diminish the urgency towards putting real fixes to real problems. So once again, I'm not saying "don't do it." But since someone actually asked for my opinion ... :) Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC44E88.3020409>