32 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archRe: 4.x compatibilty.. Was: MFC of rcNG?| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Doug Barton | Jun 15, 2002 12:14 pm | |
| Gordon Tetlow | Jun 16, 2002 9:58 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 16, 2002 11:01 am | |
| Julian Elischer | Jun 16, 2002 1:24 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 16, 2002 1:50 pm | |
| Nik Clayton | Jun 16, 2002 2:39 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 16, 2002 3:07 pm | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 17, 2002 2:10 am | |
| Dag-Erling Smorgrav | Jun 17, 2002 2:32 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 17, 2002 9:01 am | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 17, 2002 11:48 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 17, 2002 4:51 pm | |
| Giorgos Keramidas | Jun 17, 2002 7:49 pm | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 1:29 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 2:06 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 18, 2002 5:04 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 5:21 am | |
| Trish Lynch | Jun 18, 2002 6:04 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 18, 2002 6:05 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 6:12 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 18, 2002 7:26 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 10:54 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 11:06 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 11:23 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 11:35 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 11:41 am | |
| Gordon Tetlow | Jun 18, 2002 12:53 pm | |
| Nik Clayton | Jun 18, 2002 2:40 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 3:17 pm | |
| Nik Clayton | Jun 18, 2002 3:27 pm | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 18, 2002 6:00 pm | |
| Julian Elischer | Jun 18, 2002 6:20 pm |
| Subject: | Re: 4.x compatibilty.. Was: MFC of rcNG? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Doug Barton (Dou...@FreeBSD.org) | |
| Date: | Jun 16, 2002 1:50:27 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-arch | |
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
[Moved to -arch, since the cvs-* lists have suffered enough recently.]
The only MFC candidate I'd like to see is /etc/rc.subr. This would allow the ports collection to use the facilities provided by rcng while not making everything dependent on whether you are using CURRENT or STABLE.
The reason for having 4.x branch is for 'backwards compaitible' changes to be made available to users of 4.x FreeBSD.
The only features fo rcNG that can be MFC'd are those that are pure additions.
Agreed. The current way that the stuff is layed out is that there is a knob in rc.conf that basically means, "Use the old stuff, or use the new stuff." Anything that is mfc'ed will still depend on that knob. The reason for mfc'ing /etc/rc.subr (which just sits there harmlessly until you use it explicitly) is so that ports authors CAN (note, not MUST) modify their startup scripts to take advantage of it.
I'm very sensitive to the need to keep RELENG_4 non-POLA-wanking, so you can rest easy, at least as far as /etc stuff goes.
Doug
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message