some PRs

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:51:42PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:16:49PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > On 2004-07-18 15:33, Robert Millan <zeratul2 at wanadoo.es> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it's useful for compatibility.
> > 
> > In general, I'm not against compatibility.  However, what's the end of
> > this route?  To create one special device node in /dev for every
> > possible errno value? :-(
> 
> I don't claim that /dev/full is useful just for the sake of it. Your argument
> (that having a device just for each errno value is silly) is something I
> basicaly agree with.
> 
> But if some applications depend on it, it's still helpful for portability.
> I don't know what support for native compatibility is expected or planned for
> FreeBSD, but I know you have a Ports Collection with thousands of packages,
> and this might minimaly reduce the work of your port maintainers. IMHO, you
> should ask the people working in the Ports Collection for their opinion before
> taking a decision.
> 
> (Note this patch comes from the context of the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD porting
> effort, in which we port Debian GNU/Linux packages, which are a bit more
> likely to introduce Linuxisms than the average candidate for FreeBSD Ports.
> Thus, our requirements might differ somewhat.)

There's no mention of /dev/full in the build logs (e.g. configure
script output) of any of the 11000-odd ports in the ports collection.

Kris


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20040718/b9e8e530/attachment.bin