svn commit: r216483 - head

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Shteryana Shopova wrote:

Hi,

this is not directly related to this commit but I admit I looked at it
before the commit and hadn't spotted it from just the diff and am hell
of confused now that I look at the final result basically because I
hadn;t realy looked at the file in a while.

The file says:

# The file is partitioned: OLD_FILES first, then OLD_LIBS and OLD_DIRS last.

but it seems since 2007 only few people actually followed this (and I
guess I didn't either allways) and the best we try is:
1. order by date
2. if lucky go by the above rules for the entry under a given date.

This probably is because everyone stopped reading after the 2nd
sentence which says "Recently removed entries first (with the date as
a comment).".

You can check
http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/head/ObsoleteFiles.inc?annotate=148330&pathrev=216483
to see how it was originally designed to be.

So this commit actually tried to do it right, kind of and was just
trapped on the intermediate breakage, not making it better or worse.

I am happy people have lately started to care about duplicates etc.
but can we fix the description or enforce a proper ordering as well to
avoid further confusion like this.

I think grouping by date and then by file/lib/dir is actually better
as it'll keep things logically together rather than possibly splitting
it over 3 sections?

I would suggest if we'd formerlly switch, that we will create a bar line
for everything below the current one with a comment along the lines of:

########################################################################
#
# Everything below was supposed to be in 3 different sections with all
# OLD_FILES first, followed by all OLD_LIBS and all OLD_DIRS last (which
# didn't work out well).  Do not touch it unless you really need to.
#

And adopting the comment at the top to say something along the lines:

# The file is chronologically sorted with newest entries at the top.
# For a certain date one may add multiple different entries in which
# case they should be sorted in order of commits with the latest one
# first, e.g.
#  # 20101216 remove baz
#  ...
#  # 20101216 remove bar
#  ...
#  # 20101216 remove foo
#  ...
# Each such entry should list OLD_FILES first, OLD_LIBS second and
# OLD_DIRS last, e.g.
#  # 20101216 remove baz
#  OLD_LIBS+=  /lib/libkvm.so.5
#  # 20101216 remove bar
#  OLD_FILES+= /bin/sh
#  OLD_DIRS+=  /dev
#  # 20101216 remove foo
#  OLD_FILES+= /boot/kernel/kernel
#  OLD_FIELS+= /boot/loader
#  OLD_FILES+= /sbin/init
#  OLD_FILES+= /usr/lib/libc.a
#  OLD_LIBS+=  /lib/libc.so.7
#  OLD_DIRS+=  /root

You get the idea.

Any takers?


> Author: syrinx
> Date: Thu Dec 16 11:58:50 2010
> New Revision: 216483
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216483
>
> Log:
>  libbsnmp was moved to usr/lib
>
> Modified:
>  head/ObsoleteFiles.inc
>
> Modified: head/ObsoleteFiles.inc
> ==============================================================================
> --- head/ObsoleteFiles.inc	Thu Dec 16 11:20:37 2010	(r216482)
> +++ head/ObsoleteFiles.inc	Thu Dec 16 11:58:50 2010	(r216483)
> @@ -284,6 +284,8 @@ OLD_FILES+=usr/share/man/man9/ieee80211_
> OLD_FILES+=usr/share/man/man9/ieee80211_wep_crypt.9.gz
> # 20090801: vimage.h removed in favour of vnet.h
> OLD_FILES+=usr/include/sys/vimage.h
> +# 20101208: libbsnmp was moved to usr/lib
> +OLD_LIBS+=lib/libbsnmp.so.5
> # 20090719: library version bump for 8.0
> OLD_LIBS+=lib/libalias.so.6
> OLD_LIBS+=lib/libavl.so.1
>

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb                              Welcome a new stage of life.
         <ks> Going to jail sucks -- <bz> All my daemons like it!
   http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html