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>