Re: RFC: doscmd removal

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 12:13:11PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> 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?

I build a new bindist for most builds, so the above still applies.  I
don't update the build machine kernels as often as that, but that's
not relevant for this discussion since doscmd isn't run with a new
kernel as part of 'make world', so runtime breakage of doscmd isn't
detected anyway.

Kris