DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-03
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposed patch to improve seperation between kernel and userland code

From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:06:58 -0800 (PST)

:>      * libdisk should probably still be made part of the build.
:OK, but I'm not sure why.  The only consumer of libdisk in the base
:system is sysinstall AFAICT, and from what I understand, that's going
:away, thanks to Rob.  If there happen to be ports or other 3rd-party
:software that use libdisk, well, how about making libdisk itself a port?

    It hasn't gone away *yet*.

:>      * I'm on the fence in regards to sys/dir.h.  If it is possible I
:>        would prefer that it be left working.
:OK.  I just wanted to push the envelope and see how much I could shut
:off without breakage - I have no strong feelings on killing sys/dir.h,
:so I'll put it back.

    Ok, I think that's a good idea.  The first commit shouldn't try to
    combine large code compatibility issues with excellent cleanups.

					Matthew Dillon 

:>      Generally speaking, the stuff looks pretty good.  I think it is
:>      commitable with the above two changes, with the provisio that we
:>      may have to revert additional pieces of it if we start getting
:>      complaints about ports.
:Since it's only a matter of adding a #define or tweaking an #include,
:I'd rather patch the ports (except where I might've miscalculated with
:which headers truly deserve these kernel-only distinctions of course.)
:It's actually 3rd-party software that's not in the ports tree that
:worries me more - I don't want DFly to get a reputation for "hard to
:build sources on because they do funky things with their headers".
:(Obviously I don't think they're funky, I think they're *sane*, but...)
:I'll go re-install some ports at random to test for breakage now.

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]