Massive libxo-zation that breaks everything
bright at mu.org
Mon Mar 2 20:01:04 UTC 2015
On 3/2/15 2:53 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 3/2/15 5:25 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> On 3/2/15 4:25 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
>>> On 2 Mar 2015, at 09:16, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> if we develop a suitable post processor with pluggable grammars, we
>>>> save a lot of work.
>>>> given enough examples you could almost have automatically generated
>>> This decoupled approach is problematic. A large part of the point
>>> of libxo is to allow changing the human-readable output without
>>> breaking tools that consume the output. Now I need to keep the tool
>>> that consumes it and the tool that produces it in sync, so that's an
>>> extra set of moving parts. When you throw jails with multiple
>>> versions of world into the mix, it becomes a recipe for disaster.
> why? the jail has it own /usr/share?
> I think the risk is exactly opposite. That the human readable output
> will change subtly with bugs in the xo implementation.
> and people will not update the two output paths in exactly the same
> way, leading bugs. I'm not going to fight on it, but I am
> uncomfortable with it.
So you mean that we're going to have to act like mature software devs
and have regression tests (atf) and such? I welcome such a change.
> You are increasing the complexity of every program you touch.
And its utility as well. Worth it.
More information about the freebsd-current