DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-02
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Backporting DFly patches to FreeBSD?

From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:55:14 -0800 (PST)

:On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:07:54 -0800, walt <wa1ter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> DFly has an important improvement to /boot/loader which really should
:> be applied to the FreeBSD source tree.  I have no credibility with the
:> FBSD project, but some of you folks do.
:> Is there someone here who could lobby the FBSD developers to apply our
:> patch to their sources?
:> Thanks.
:There have been so many major and minor developments in DFly that
:looking at any one item, such as the boot code, for back port into
:fbsd has become a moot point.
:One taking note from reading previous posts to the fbsd lists by
:various users talking about misc. advancements in DFly, and questions
:are asked about back porting the changes into fbsd has never ended
:well.  Always due to hostility from the fbsd developers to the
:person(s) asking the question.
:The changes have also been brought up to their attention and have been
:available in cvs for anyone to use for what ever cause.
:I'm sure this has to be the reason for asking the question in the
:first place.  Our boot code is still compatible for any current
:FreeBSD users that would like to switch over to DragonFly, hence no
:need to back port the changes.
:                                            -David
:                                            Steven David Rhodus

    Yes, its unfortunate but that's the way the cookie crumbles.  DragonFly
    was started because of major disagreements in the direction that FreeBSD 
    development was taking.  I had hoped that our successes would move
    FreeBSD into reconsidering portions of their model, but that hasn't
    happened and, frankly, at this point the work done in DragonFly is so
    extensive that I doubt FreeBSD could port the more interesting things
    (such as the namecache layer) even if they wanted to.  There are still
    some things which are simple enough that they could port, and 
    so obviously advantageous that they *should* port them, such as the
    IPI messaging, but the fact is that while some FreeBSD developers
    have an interest in the work, nobody seems interested enough to actually
    do the work and run the gauntlet to actually get it into FreeBSD.

					Matthew Dillon 

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