Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 00:29:36 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Marc Balmer <marc@msys.ch> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org>, Martin Blapp <mbr@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r195200 - in head/usr.sbin: . wake Message-ID: <20090630212936.GC2884@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <70EA13C9-997D-488D-83D6-06D603B76D11@msys.ch> References: <200906301851.n5UIpNJQ089171@svn.freebsd.org> <4A4A626A.4080801@freebsd.org> <5A796102-063B-4032-92C9-EC97AF2E5D5B@msys.ch> <4A4A7F0B.1010001@freebsd.org> <70EA13C9-997D-488D-83D6-06D603B76D11@msys.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nxoMry5nym+Z12ly Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:25:56PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote: >=20 > Am 30.06.2009 um 23:09 schrieb Sam Leffler: >=20 > >Marc Balmer wrote: > >> > >>Am 30.06.2009 um 21:07 schrieb Sam Leffler: > >> > >>>Martin Blapp wrote: > >>>>Author: mbr > >>>>Date: Tue Jun 30 18:51:22 2009 > >>>>New Revision: 195200 > >>>>URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/195200 > >>>> > >>>>Log: > >>>>Add wake, a tool to send Wake on LAN frames to hosts on a local =20 > >>>>Ethernet network > >>>> Submitted by: Marc Balmer <marc@msys.ch> > >>>>Reviewed by: rwatson > >>>>Approved by: re > >>>> > >>> > >>>what's wrong with ports/net/wol? > >>> > >> > >>wake(8) is smaller and it is actually something needed in base. in =20 > >>modern, ecological "green computing" environments we put the client =20 > >>machines, like our POS terminals to sleep at night. In the =20 > >>morning, a cronjob from the central server wakes up all machines =20 > >>using this command. more and more systems support it, so havin a =20 > >>wake command in base is just about right. > >> > >> > >The typical way things happen in freebsd is we promote tools from =20 > >ports when they are deemed needed in the base system. In fact it's =20 > >probably more important to have the tool in base remain compatible =20 > >with what users have had in their tree (via ports). > > > >I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why wake was chosen =20 > >over an existing tool that's been successfully used for a while. =20 > >OTOH this isn't something that'll keep me up at night; it just seems =20 > >like an ill-advised rush job that completely violates the intent of =20 > >the 8.0 code freeze.. >=20 > a compelling argument could be that wake(8) is BSD licensed while wol =20 > found in ports/net/wol is GPL licensed and brings in a whole lot of a =20 > whole lot of a whole lot of a whole lot of a stuff with it, when =20 > actually, to send out Wake on LAN package, a small BSD licensed =20 > command like wake(8) is sufficient. it is much smaller an cleaner code. Then, add the wake program to ports. My opinion is that this better be kept in ports. --nxoMry5nym+Z12ly Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkpKg78ACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4h+bgCfWJ5/HrHdSyRl554u+gIXlh9J Ny8An1sq6CztpVbIniSynGC/p6sXateC =wmor -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nxoMry5nym+Z12ly--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090630212936.GC2884>