Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:01:13 -0500 From: Jon Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Suggest to upgrade some software in base Message-ID: <40E08719.8020200@alumni.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <5FAC72E6-C942-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > Jon Noack wrote: >> On 06/28/04 07:52, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: >>> Jon Noack wrote: >>>> On 06/27/04 12:02, David O'Brien wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 04:54:08PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: >>>>>> I digged through our base system and looked for versions of >>>>>> contributed soft. I found these program which could (and I >>>>>> think should) be easily and painlessly upgraded (before 5.3 >>>>>> as 5-STABLE) because they are outdated etc... these are: >>>>>> >>>>>> file - 3.41 -> 4.09 >>>>>> Painless upgrade and the benefit is much newer magic file >>>>>> ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/ >>>>> >>>>> Only semi-painless. The code and how it is built has changed >>>>> around a lot, else I would have upgraded it by now. That >>>>> said, in progress; but lower priority than my toolchain work. >>>>> And why does this have to happen before 5-STABLE? I can >>>>> certainly MFC something like this. >>>> >>>> Don't import until FILE 4.10 is released. I've submitted a >>>> patch to Christos Zoulas for inclusion in 4.10 that *greatly* >>>> increases the accuracy of FILE for FreeBSD. As soon as I see >>>> FILE 4.10 released (with my patch), I'll be pleading for an >>>> import... >>> >>> Seems like Christos has been swamped by readelf.c patches :) I >>> must admit that I didn't care about 4.6.2... Anyway, 4.09 is an >>> improvement, and the import of 4.10 should be trivial afterwards, >>> so why wait? >> >> I agree that 4.09 is a huge improvement (although it's wrong for >> FreeBSD 4.10+, at least it correctly detects 5.x for the time >> being. however, as soon as we we get 5-STABLE it'll still say it's >> -CURRENT). The biggest issue will be the upgrade from 3.41 -> 4.x, >> so the 4.09 -> 4.10 upgrade should be trivial as you say. >> >> My only concern was conservation of limited developer resources. If >> someone wants to import 4.09 with the intent of following up to >> 4.10, go for it. However, in my opinion FILE 4.10 should be primary >> goal. > > As said before: the update is sitting in my local repository, ready > to commit. Anyone want to commit this? I'll pester you when FILE 4.10 is released, but this is certainly an improvement on the version currently in tree. Jonhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40E08719.8020200>