Re: gcc3.x issues
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 23:46, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Yes, absolutely. Every minute David spends replying to these idiotic > suggestions wastes valuable project time. How many FreeBSD users need > to compile Java to machine code? 2, 3, 4 people? How hard is it to > use `pkg_add -r' and rearrange your PATH to make a stock GCC work? You know, people might be less persistent about these "idiotic" suggestions if they got treated with some civility and respect. It's a lot more meaningful and useful to receive an explanation, even a brief one, about why your suggestion isn't good than it is to receive personal abuse. If you simply abuse someone, they're just going to think you're a jerk, not that their ideas are bad. More flies with honey, and all that. I've noticed a lot of nastiness in this thread, and it's really pretty disappointing. Yes, you're all busy people. Yes, this is a volunteer project. Yes, people are never satisfied with what others do for them for free. That sucks, sure. But it doesn't make it okay to treat people like crap for daring to disagree with you. --nat To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: gcc3.x issues
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 12:59, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > These comments are not useless, most committers have day jobs that > unfortunetly preclude them from having time to work on every little > feature request. Furthermore asking for patches is the exact > opposite of being smug at least in the way of flaunting one's commit > priveledges, it's providing the user an opportunity to present work > for inclusion into the project. Surely you see the difference between "That's an interesting idea; can you generate some patches so we can take a look and see how it works out?" and "WhereTF is your patch to do this?". One provides an opportunity for users to contribute, and the other is a snarling, rude dismissal that really doesn't do very much to encourage people to stick around and help out. --nat To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: gcc3.x issues
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 12:59, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > These comments are not useless, most committers have day jobs that > unfortunetly preclude them from having time to work on every little > feature request. Furthermore asking for patches is the exact > opposite of being smug at least in the way of flaunting one's commit > priveledges, it's providing the user an opportunity to present work > for inclusion into the project. Surely you see the difference between "That's an interesting idea; can you generate some patches so we can take a look and see how it works out?" and "WhereTF is your patch to do this?". One provides an opportunity for users to contribute, and the other is a snarling, rude dismissal that really doesn't do very much to encourage people to stick around and help out. --nat To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: AFS.
Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Note that there will still be a commercial AFS offering, and > this new open-source AFS option. The open-source one will > not include some things from the commercial package. I am > not sure what things will be missing. >From what I've heard, the bits missing will be the customized vendor fscks (as they require vendor source that IBM can't give away) and tsm (an AIX subsystem that I know nothing about). Also, I'm told that xdr will be in a separate distribution due to licensing issues. The vendor fscks and the AIX stuff are irrelevant to a FreeBSD system, and if xdr is still available, then things are fine. --nat -- nat lanza - research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~magus/ there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: linux emulation
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Linux has the distinction between block and character devices. I don't > see any evidence that block devices can be accessed as character devices > as well (ie: there's /dev/fd0, but no /dev/rfd0). You can do this in Linux, but the way it works is pretty psychotic. They have a special driver that provides a raw character device interface for block devices, and you have to run a userland utility to bind a block device to one of their /dev/raw devices. This is new as of 2.3/2.4, but there are patches to 2.2 to allow it. Actually, it might have been backported and included with later 2.2 kernels, but I haven't been paying a lot of attention. --nat -- nat lanza - research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~magus/ there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Whether or not it's part of FreeBSD is immaterial. It's part of the > distribution that comes from FreeBSD, and is treated differentlyh from > locally installed software (whether written locally or by a third > party) in every case *except* where it installs - and that's only > because it's installed in the wrong place. > > In other words, "It's not part of FreeBSD" is a rationalization. Your argument doesn't make much sense to me. So if I compile sawfish myself I should install it in /usr/local, but if I install a FreeBSD package for it, it should never go in /usr/local? If I grab a sawfish FreeBSD package from the sawfish website, where should that install? /usr/local? /opt? /usr/pkg? Third party software is third party software, no matter who compiled and packaged it. If I install a package of third-party software, the end result should be about the same as if I compiled and installed it by hand -- the packaged software is a convenience, not a fundamentally different entity. --nat -- nat lanza - research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~magus/ there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, the issue is one of "preciousness". In other words why backup > software that I can just do `pkg_add' to get again? Or if I want to > easily start from scratch and update all my FreeBSD Packages? This is an entirely reasonable argument; I don't tend to group software this way, so I hadn't thought of it like this. This is probably because in my world, we use a somewhat different model for software installation -- CMU is heavily dependent on AFS, and software tends to be installed on local machines out of backed-up AFS volumes through something like depot. So every package has its own little directory tree, and it's all merged together at install time into /usr/local or /usr/contributed or something like that. So we don't differentiate how precious software is by where it's installed -- the directories it's installed _from_ are the key bit, and the destination directories can be wiped and recreated at any time. --nat -- nat lanza - research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~magus/ there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: md, current and stable
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Releases are bad enough as is w/o having to add in a multitude of > hacks so that one can roll a 5.0 release on a 2.2.x box, etc. Sure, but allowing 4.x users to do a source upgrade to 5.0 makes the upgrade path much more flexible. There's a big difference between "support source upgrades from version N-1" and "support source upgrades from all versions". --nat -- nat lanza - research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~magus/ there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: md, current and stable
Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You don't need "make release" to do a source upgrade from 4.x to 5.x... You're right. Whoops. I can still see it being useful in some cases, though, and as long as the changes necessary to support it aren't too ugly it might be worthwhile. --nat -- nat lanza - research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~magus/ there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
