Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:58:27 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libdisk Makefile chunk.c write_alpha_disk.c write_i386_disk.c write_pc98_disk.c Message-ID: <21415.1035568707@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:16:01 MDT." <20021025.111601.57619416.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20021025.111601.57619416.imp@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes: >: >If you >: >want to increse the already insane level of pain to upgrade to 5.0, >: >then go ahead and break them. >: >: You know, we may actually _decrease_ the insanity level a lot by >: requiring a reinstall. > >That level of pain is going to be ugly. Could be, but it might still be the lesser level of pain. People seem to have no problem reinstalling Linux four to six times a year, so I wonder why reinstalling to get the first major "New Technology" release of FreeBSD should be that much harder for them. The amount of weird inconsistent systems we get by insisting that people install from scratch for 5.0-R would be epsilon, compared to if we just overwrite whatever they have there now. >I think that's a bad interaction. Could be. I just told the worst bike-shedder in private email that he is not going to get any further from me on this topic. Enough is enough. >: The justification was given in ample amount 4+ years ago, but here >: are the high-lights again: >: >: 1: It confuses users. The reason why you don't hear much about >: this now is that for four years we have installed systems >: with consistent names by default. > >In your opinion. Ask Jordan, he was the one with his finger on WC's help-line. He was quite insistent about this. >Right now we have a huge backward compatibility problem, which s/huge/small/ The only people who have the compat names have all put them there themselves, and they will be perfectly able to fix it trivially when the read the releasenote for 5.0. I belive this is more a matter of "want to" than "able to". You can also add magic to the loader if you like, to stick in some s%d if it isn't there. Then early in /etc/rc you can run a script to put symlinks in /dev if you feel like. I don't feel like it. I have already volunteered to get libdisk and sysinstall to do sparc64 and possibly UFS2, I'm not taking more on my plate. And seriously, adding more magic is not the way we should be headed, but if you belive it gets simpler by adding more obscure code, be my guest. >sane. The current failure modes aren't acceptible. Ideally, you'd >retain the compat slice names for another major release, but failing >that ideal, the onus is on you to ensure graceful failure. We have retained them for far more releases than we should. There is no way I can provide compat names in GEOM without totally fucking over the layering, just like it was in the old disk code. Fucking over the layering is much harder to implement when the locking is correct, and therefore I won't even think about it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21415.1035568707>