xstr, mkstr

[Ian Lepore]

On Wed, 2018-07-04 at 07:49 -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Rodney W. Grimes <
> > freebsd-rwg at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But, as I said early, lets just shelf all this "lets remove this or
> > > that cause of foo" until package base is done, and then a group of
> > > people should create a documented critiria list of what should or
> > > should not be in the base system, and do a tree wide sweep rather
> > > than have 100+ threads over the next 5 years about this or that.
> > > 
> > It does tie into the deprecation stuff too.
> Then shall this be tabled until that is finished please?
> 
> > 
> > xstr, at least, needs major work to support modern C dialects. It's not
> > just old, it's also broken. A quick stroll through the code shows this. It
> > should go because it's not worth taking with us to pkg base.
> So add "Old", "Broken" to the list of critera and lets move on?
> Cost of taking this to pkg base should be 0, cost of this
> conversation is already >>> 0.

Packaged base has nothing to do with this. The cost of keeping this
code isn't a few bytes of disk space for the binary, it's the burden of
having unused code that doesn't even work in the source tree. If you
don't see that as a burden, then this conversation is going to keep
going nowhere useful, as it has been doing for a couple days now.

-- Ian