From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 26 15:46:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665C937B401; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3D743F93; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:46:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from master.dougb.net (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003042622460900100e25s3e>; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:46:10 +0000 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030426154030.M13476@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-rc@yahoogroups.com Subject: RFC: Removal of the old rc system from -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:46:12 -0000 [ Please respect followups to -arch, and avoid cross-posting responses, thanks. ] Summary: I'm proposing the removal of the old rc system from HEAD, and all subsequent 5.x releases. Background: During the discussion of importing the next generation rc system (rcNG) the request was made to follow a "typical" deprecation schedule, with rcNG as the default in 5-Release, and the old system (rcOG) still existent but deprecated, not to be removed till 6.x. At the time, I agreed to that plan as a sort of "wait and see" measure, since it seemed reasonable at the time. However, I think it's time to revisit that decision. Current situation: If you'll pardon a bit of horn blowing, the rcNG team, especially Mike Makonnen, has done a great job of bringing over a lot of code from NetBSD, making some improvements, and quite a few compatibility patches. The existing rcNG system, to the best of our knowledge, is totally bug-compatible with rcOG. We've hit all of the project timelines that we established for ourselves, and we continue to improve the system, while staying responsive to bug reports. That's the good news. The bad news is that the status quo leaves us with essentially 3 "rc branches" to support. The rcNG code is where most new development is occurring. There is also rcOG in HEAD, and the old rc system in RELENG_4. This is becoming more and more difficult to support as time goes by. We're already seeing features that are added in rcNG that there are no plans to migrate to rcOG, mostly because they are 5.x only features. Dropping rcOG in HEAD will free up cycles that could then be better spent on developing new features, and back-porting useful things to RELENG_4 (whether on OG or NG format). We're also starting to see some confusion on the part of users about having both systems on disk. I haven't seen a _lot_ of posts about this yet, but I think that the rate of adoption for -current is still pretty slow, so it's hard to judge. In fact, I think that since rcNG has been the default for over 7 months now, with practically zero reported problems, speaks volumes toward the suitability of rcNG as the stand alone code base in 5.x. Proposal for the future: We'd like to take the following actions: 1. Remove the old rc framework prior to the 5.1-Release. 2. Backport /etc/rc.subr to RELENG_4 prior to 4.9-Release. The purpose here is to allow ports authors to make use of the rcNG system for their startup scripts, and to possibly allow us to backport major features that just work better in the NG framework. 3. Start generating error messages about the compatibility variables we are currently supporting. portmap_*, xntpd_*, and single_mountd_enable. Your friendly neighborhood rc team is ready and willing to entertain discussion on this topic. Particularly, if you're not using rcNG now because it lacks some feature that the old system had, we'd really like to hear from you. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection