Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:00:26 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Danny J. Zerkel" <dzerkel@columbus.rr.com> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Do we still need portmap(8)? Message-ID: <3DA498EA.C7BF77A@mindspring.com> References: <3DA1F203.6CD50B5C@mindspring.com> <20021007233346.GB1408@hades.hell.gr> <20021007.190527.83978649.imp@bsdimp.com> <200210072127.58523.dzerkel@columbus.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Danny J. Zerkel" wrote: > And a list of files to delete would have saved many emails about the > GCC being broken when the old headers just needed to be deleted. No, it wouldn't. The same people who failed to read the mailing list, and see the first time the problem came up, and was solved, would fail to read the file. The information was available after the first time the problem was successfully and publically addressed. I challenge you to contact everyone who has posted complaining about the "stale header file problem" in the last 6 months, and ask them what resources they looked to for a solution, before they contacted the mailing list. I will be incredibly surprised if you find that they have any single "README" or other file in common, where such information could have been placed. If you *do* find such a file, then you should create a patch, so that there will be no more postings of the question by users as they run into it. The reasons volunteers automate processes are (1) "for their own use", (2) "to advocate something", or (3) "to get other people to shut up". The reasons the topic of automating this process keep coming up are the same; I would say that 90% of the people involved in the discussion (including myself) are in camp #3. Yes, it would be nice if this were automatic, but not if it screws up the ability to run perl scripts (as one example). If you want to address it systematically, then what you can do *right now* is cause a file containing a build identifier to be installed as part of the "install world" or "install from CDROM" process that will allow the current system to be recreated. A delta management system is only as good as the timestamp from which the deltas are managed, relative to the current timestamp. Personally, I suggest a file "/etc/BUILD" be created to contain the CVS tag and a timestamp indicating the checkout time, created as part of the build process (maybe the tag from the output of a "CVS stat" on the Makefile in /usr/src, processed to deal with sticky tags, and the date stamp on the file itself, otherwise). Everything else can be hung off that. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DA498EA.C7BF77A>