Re: du -A / -B options [Re: zfs quota question]

[Pete French]

> Any objections against the general concept?  It's rather complicated to get 
> the apparent size of a directory hierarchy without scripting.  I often wonder 
> if some hierarchy will fit on a CD/DVD and compressed zfs makes this really 
> difficult.

It's a definite thumbs up from me - this is exactly what I was looking
for in the original thread. Very nice couple of new options.

-pete.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Asynchronous pipe I/O

[rihad]

Nate Eldredge wrote:
 > sh prog1 > tmpfile &

tail -f -c +0 tmpfile | sh prog2

BTW, I don't think this would solve my problem as tail -f would block 
waiting for more data, as would prog2, so after prog1 finishes writing 
data they would block indefinitely on input. I forgot to mention this 
was supposed to be a short-lived pipeline, not daemons, as you had 
probably thought.


Also, I've already learned how to use misc/buffer correctly so the 
problem's gone. Thank you for your time.

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: includes, configure, /usr/lib vs. /usr/local/lib, and linux coders

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:12:34 -0700, "Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's alot of good info.  It should go in the porter's handbook,
> maybe...

Hi Steve,

Probably not.  What I wrote is specific to the GNU build system.  We
have many ports that use configure scripts and makefiles generated from
various versions of the GNU build tools, but ports are ``different''.
We are not the _maintainers_ of the main source code of all the ported
applications.  We just have to make sure they build on FreeBSD, and
that's pretty much all of it.

For example, if the source tree of a port includes a `configure.in' that
is broken on FreeBSD and Cygwin, we don't really have to ``fix'' both of
these.  If it builds correctly on FreeBSD, we are done.  This may not be
enough for Cygwin users, but we are not out to fix everyone's code to
build on everybody else's system.  That would be an insane amount of
work for a very doubtful amount of gain :)

> So, if I'm looking to make a port, which one of those people should I
> be acting as?  Maintainer?  That's FreeBSD-port-terminology you are
> using, correct?

FreeBSD Porters are a separate category.  They usually fall in the
category of `builder' I mentioned in the original post, but they have to
provide the tools for `packagers' too, in the form of Makefiles, scripts
and packaging lists that allow others to configure, build and package
the ``vendor'' code for some FreeBSD version.

When I mentioned `maintainer', `builder' and `packager' roles in the
original post I didn't mean *FreeBSD-maintainer* but the actual person
or team that maintains the upstream source of a program.

HTH,
Giorgos

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"