AW: svn commit: r195200 - in head/usr.sbin: . wake

[Garance A Drosehn]

At 7:04 AM +0200 7/1/09, Blapp, Martin wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>I really was not my or Marcs intention to skip any discussions. Rwatson
>told us that if we like to see it in 8.0, we need to approve it by RE
>and commit it before the 1. of july, and that's what I've done. Sorry
>if I've upset anyone.
>
>Personally I think the tool is quite handy, better than net/wol (which
>doesn't seem to work with different interfaces), wake doesn't need any
>strange libaries as dependencies and it just a very short one (4k)
>
>If the concensus is to back it out, I'll back it out.

I have no strong opinion on the program itself, and it would be fine
with me if it is added after some decent code review, and after 8.0
is done.  It sounds like this does have some advantages over 'wol',
but I see no urgent reason that this *must* be in 8.0-release.

For me, this is not a question of whether the utility is "nice", or
what the name of it should be.  It's a question of whether it means
anything to announce a code freeze if we're constantly going to make
exceptions to it.  And whether it's fair to rush in a command just
under the wire, which then means we'd have to go into an even bigger
debate to justify pulling the command out of the base system after
we've shipped an official stable-release with it in the system.

This is not a utility which is needed to install freebsd, or which is
needed before a new install of freebsd gets to the point where it can
install things via ports or packages.  Please note that I'm not trying
to debate the wonderfulness of 'wake' itself.  I'm trying to come up
with good guidelines which would be used for *any* command which is
shows up on the day before an already-announced code freeze.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =               drosehn at rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer               or   gad at FreeBSD.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;             Troy, NY;  USA