svn commit: r195200 - in head/usr.sbin: . wake
marc at msys.ch
Tue Jun 30 21:26:04 UTC 2009
Am 30.06.2009 um 23:09 schrieb Sam Leffler:
> Marc Balmer wrote:
>> Am 30.06.2009 um 21:07 schrieb Sam Leffler:
>>> Martin Blapp wrote:
>>>> Author: mbr
>>>> Date: Tue Jun 30 18:51:22 2009
>>>> New Revision: 195200
>>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/195200
>>>> Add wake, a tool to send Wake on LAN frames to hosts on a local
>>>> Ethernet network
>>>> Submitted by: Marc Balmer <marc at msys.ch>
>>>> Reviewed by: rwatson
>>>> Approved by: re
>>> what's wrong with ports/net/wol?
>> wake(8) is smaller and it is actually something needed in base. in
>> modern, ecological "green computing" environments we put the client
>> machines, like our POS terminals to sleep at night. In the
>> morning, a cronjob from the central server wakes up all machines
>> using this command. more and more systems support it, so havin a
>> wake command in base is just about right.
> The typical way things happen in freebsd is we promote tools from
> ports when they are deemed needed in the base system. In fact it's
> probably more important to have the tool in base remain compatible
> with what users have had in their tree (via ports).
> I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why wake was chosen
> over an existing tool that's been successfully used for a while.
> OTOH this isn't something that'll keep me up at night; it just seems
> like an ill-advised rush job that completely violates the intent of
> the 8.0 code freeze..
a compelling argument could be that wake(8) is BSD licensed while wol
found in ports/net/wol is GPL licensed and brings in a whole lot of a
whole lot of a whole lot of a whole lot of a stuff with it, when
actually, to send out Wake on LAN package, a small BSD licensed
command like wake(8) is sufficient. it is much smaller an cleaner code.
> svn-src-all at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the svn-src-all