From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 14 08:55:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480AF16A4CE; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:55:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F1143D39; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:55:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2EGtL2Z037238; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:55:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i2EGtLDT005622; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:55:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i2EGtK2C005621; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:55:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:55:20 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20040314165520.GA5545@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20040314022615.GA21795@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040314052944.GA75355@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> <20040314075329.GA3927@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20040314082307.GA80283@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> <20040314093143.GA4906@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040314101311.GB63843@ip.net.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040314101311.GB63843@ip.net.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Tim Robbins cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: RFC: doscmd removal X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:55:22 -0000 On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 12:13:11PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > > > That might be and is the reason I asked for the reasoning behind it. One > > > reason why keeping it in the tree is good, is because it help pick API > > > changes that break it. Out in ports it might take a while to pick that > > > up and then it will be the poor user's problem. :-/ Doscmd use parts of > > > the kernel that isn't used by many other programs. > > > > Port compile problems are typically picked up on bento within a week, > > and often within 24 hours. > > > No, the question was rather: how often the kernel gets updated on bento? It's irrelevant. doscmd is not designed to replace a regression test suite. Pulling in circumstantial properties when discussing core properties is never a good idea. Especially when the circumstantial properties have more perceived value than real value. In other words: keeping doscmd in the source tree because we think that it tests aspects of our ABI much better than when it's a port is multi-dimensional bollocks. Frequency of ABI breakages would be one aspect that could have some importance. However, if we break our ABI frequently enough that having doscmd in the source tree is a big win, then we're wasting time on trivialities and meaningless arguments while leaving the key flaws and problems undealt with. So, if we were to discuss that there's a value to have a select set of ports built on a daily basis on our reference machines as a form of sanity checking then I have no problem adding doscmd to that set. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net