RFC: C version of devd daemon.

army.of.root army.of.root at googlemail.com
Sat Jun 13 12:40:56 UTC 2009

Antxon wrote:
> El sáb, 13-06-2009 a las 11:57 +0200, Ed Schouten escribió:
>> * Carlos A. M. dos Santos <unixmania at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's a different story. Reading man pages is not a functional
>>> requirement, depending on the point of view. A system *can* run fine
>>> even without manual pages (and the corresponding reader/formatter)
>>> installed.
>> And a typical FreeBSD webserver won't be affected by devd not being
>> installed. I read a lot of manpages, but I think I've only changed devd
>> related config files once or twice in my entire life. But we're drifting
>> off.
>> Rewriting devd in C, just because Clang doesn't support C++, is not a
>> good argument. Clang itself is also written in C++. Even I (the
>> maintainer of the clangbsd branch in SVN) think that a compiler that is
>> not able to bootstrap itself cannot be considered a serious replacement
>> for GCC at this time.
> Those are really good reasons. C++ is still needed to compile Clang, but
> clang it's not the only compiler available at the moment. It's just
> about choices. Is it worth to rewrite devd it in C? As I already did
> that, it is not up to my to answer the question.
> Antxon.


it seems consistent to use C, especially when theres only one program left
thats C++ (after groff is replaced with mdoc). And since devd is only a few loc
it does not seem reasonable to argue with complexity.

It does not cost anything (its already done), so why not just seriously
consider using the C implemetation, when its code quality is as good.

@Anxton: Could you post it somewhere? - It would really help this conversation
if people could look at the actual code.

best regards and many thanks for supporting *BSD you all!

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list