From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 6 00:23:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA14578 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:23:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from euthyphro.uchicago.edu (euthyphro.uchicago.edu [128.135.21.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA14554 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:23:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sfarrell@phaedrus.uchicago.edu) Received: from phaedrus.uchicago.edu (phaedrus [128.135.21.10]) by euthyphro.uchicago.edu (8.8.6/8.8.4) with ESMTP id CAA03334; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 02:23:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from sfarrell@localhost) by phaedrus.uchicago.edu (8.8.8/8.8.5) id CAA02840; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 02:23:06 -0500 (CDT) To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Softupdate for 2.2.6? References: <199804060125.SAA09720@usr04.primenet.com> From: sfarrell+lists@farrell.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: 06 Apr 1998 02:23:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: Terry Lambert's message of "Mon, 6 Apr 1998 01:25:04 +0000 (GMT)" Message-ID: <87af9z2z39.fsf@phaedrus.uchicago.edu> Lines: 35 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.3/XEmacs 20.3 - "Vatican City" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert writes: > > > > If patches were provided, say for soft updates, would they be > > > > integrated, or would thy have to remain "third party"? > > > > > > Would said patches work? > > > > > > Softupdates in current does not work. Someone would have to pull quite > > > the rabbit out of their hat to get softupdates to work in 2.2.x before > > > current. > > > > Not so sure about that . -current has had quite a few VM changes in it. > > I think this is very true; this is pretty much what I was alluding > to with my question. I think -stable would be an easy port, if > someone were familiar with the OpenBSD code and wanted to take a > stab at it. > > Most of the work is in the interaction with the VM system. > > 2.2.x would not be a picnic; some of the assumptions already being > corrected for in the -current port are based on a unified VM and > buffer cache model, which is present is -stable, as well. But it's > cwertainly not outside the realm of possibility for an undergraduate > student who has half a year of independent study to do something with, > and no idea what to tackle. Hm... does anyone have a sense of what the lifetime of 2.2.x is? I'm just thinking if it took someone half a year, and 2.2.x would be dead in 9 months (e.g.), then it wouldn't really be that worthwhile. -- Steve Farrell To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message