Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:55:13 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: zeratul2@wanadoo.es Subject: Re: some PRs Message-ID: <200407191855.19885.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20040719.081356.51946167.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20040718184008.GC57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20040719075952.GG57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20040719.081356.51946167.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_3z/+AlCc2BpJr9+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 19 July 2004 16:13, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20040719075952.GG57678@darkness.comp.waw.pl> > > Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> writes: > : On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:58:25AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : +> : Even if it is used by some programms, I don't see it in the base > : system. +> : It can be always implemented as a kernel module and > : maintained outside +> : the tree. > : +> > : +> Given that it is implemented in this driver in about 20 lines, I thi= nk > : +> that it makes sense to have it in the base. Suggesting it be > : +> maintained outside of the tree is just plain silly. It should be > : +> brought in or abadoned. > : > : It isn't even used by one of our 11000 ports and you want to bring it > : into base system? We don't have other devices in the tree, which are > : actually used by some ports. I still think, that if a port which is usi= ng > : /dev/full will be created, device should be maintained there. > : EOT. > > I guess my point is that that creates so much more work that it seems > like overkill. We often put things into the base system for > compatibility, but rely on out of system things for higher level > functionality. The question to me is, do we really want to support (read fertilize) such a= =20 stupid thing? Given the chance that once we do support it people will use i= t.=20 In my opinion it is bad to integrate something into base that we agree is=20 nothing one should ever have created (at least that's my reading of the=20 thread so far). I see no user-pessure for this. I do agree however, that suggesting to maintain something that cannot be do= ne=20 in userland outside the tree is not a good solution. Still, I feel like thi= s=20 is something that belongs into the linux compat code, at best (maybe behind= =20 an "option LINUX_STUPIDITY" ....) =2D-=20 /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News --Boundary-02=_3z/+AlCc2BpJr9+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBA+/z3XyyEoT62BG0RAoN0AJkBZ5eZCUQi1pAbYfO9Q0aiX13FMQCfce9B ymqXsIq22Znhv5bcfO2h7PI= =XBCc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_3z/+AlCc2BpJr9+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407191855.19885.max>