Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <200406271841.08596.michaelnottebrock_at_gmx.net>, Michael Nottebrock w
> rites:
> 
> 
> 
>>>No, I am not able to maintain the moduls because i am not a good enough
>>>programmer. If that would be the case i would have adapted the stallion
>>>stl driver.
>>
>>In that case, you have to make yourself (and your customers, by proxy) heard.
>>If you don't complain loud enough, nobody will know that you depend on this
>>driver.
> 
> 
> Well, yes, making sure we know what bits are in use out there is
> always a good idea, but it is not enough to get things to stick
> around in the long run.
> 
> That takes developer mind-share, and that seems to be pretty universally
> absent for ibcs2 and svr4.
> 

Despite my doubts, it sounds like people can successfully run SVR4
binaries and possibly even iBCS binaries under 5-CURRENT.  I've also
heard many stories about people sticking with FreeBSD because these
subsystems are very important to them and they work.  They aren't
perfect, but they also seem to be fairly resistant to rot. So, in light
of the responses that we've seen so far, I'd like to ask a few questions
here:

1) Do you have pending work that hinges on changes to SVR4 and/or IBCS?
2) If so, are these changes purely mechanical, or do they require some
significant work?

I'd like to ask that you hold off on axing these until we get a better
idea of what the community impact is.

Scott