Quoting Kostik Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> (from Wed, 9 Jun 2010
16:25:43 +0300):
I can not think of any viable reason why one would want to "spoof" this
when it is not available.
Many ports are doing wrong thing there, checking for run-time features at
the build-time, turning on/off some functionality depending on its
presence on the build host.
We heard that "there are some ports", but we do not know a concrete
example. Anyone here with a concrete example of such a port (maybe
more than one)?
The big question here is: what is going on at build time regarding
those features?
As you describe the problem, we have to make a change to the port
anyway. And IMO it does not matter much if we change it to detect it
at run-time (then we do not need the spoofing feature), or if we
change it to look for the sysctl at build time. And the preferred way
would be to detect at run-time then.
What we search for is a good real-life example where spoofing a
non-existing feature would be helpful. So far we where able to come up
with cases where this would hurt, but not help.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
If the master dies and the disciple grieves,
the lives of both have been wasted.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
