phk writes: > You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such > historically interesting decisions.
I am aware of the technical arguments discussed via -arch, -current & -hackers. I just don't agree with them (seems like most hackers who are afraid to cross you). > You are not welcome to build another bikeshed over it. If block devices are "trivial" to build with geom, they should've been not removed until geom was in place. Oh well. I am not going to argue about this over and over and over again. But I was hoping sanity would prevail (my hopes were raised with perl-5's removal and Julian & Bruce piping up). > Man 4 geom is a good place to start. Thanks. More on this in a separate email. > There will also be a tutorial friday afternoon about GEOM > at BSDCONeuro2002 in amsterdam next month. Too far to travel :-) Julian writes: > He had some backing, for example Kirk made a good argument for removing > them. The arguments about not being able to do devfs and geom without > removing them are of course specious as it can and was done before > by others. Hmm.. I don't recall Kirk McKusick's argument for removing a buffered block device. > One provides a stacking system for disk geometries wand layouts > where the upper interface is the same as that provided by the actual > disk. Thanks! -- bakul To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
