On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 01:31:43AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 10:23:07AM +0200, John Hay wrote: > > > > > I plan to remove doscmd from the base system for the sole reason that it > > > > > is no longer useful. Any objections? > > > > > > > > Why would you want to remove it? It is still very usefull. I use it > > > > regularly. The only drawback currently is that the Makefile is set > > > > up in such a way that it does not pick up X during a "make world", > > > > so after a "make world" you have to build it again to pick up X. > > > > Built without X it is less usefull. > > > > > > This is exactly the reason why the source tree is not the right > > > place for doscmd. > > > > That might be and is the reason I asked for the reasoning behind it. One > > reason why keeping it in the tree is good, is because it help pick API > > changes that break it. Out in ports it might take a while to pick that > > up and then it will be the poor user's problem. :-/ Doscmd use parts of > > the kernel that isn't used by many other programs. > > Port compile problems are typically picked up on bento within a week, > and often within 24 hours. > No, the question was rather: how often the kernel gets updated on bento? Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov FreeBSD committer ru_at_FreeBSD.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:47 UTC