From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 04:20:25 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC88106566C for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 04:20:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434FE157824; Tue, 29 May 2012 04:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FC44E88.3020409@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:20:24 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Marakasov 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> In-Reply-To: <20120528220519.GA38860@hades.panopticon> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Leidinger , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: OptionalObsoleteFiles.inc completeness 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: Tue, 29 May 2012 04:20:26 -0000 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