Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:56:52 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Best for what? best for the particular example I gave. There are others, where system gets the POSIX stamp of approval by having .h functions from a list but doesn't actually implement them or just partially implements them. Just a part of the proofs that 100% POSIX chest-thumping is silly, that spec needs some spiffing up before it should be taken 100% seriously. OpenBSD doesn't strive to be the be-all and end-all of UNIX-like OSes. We ain't realtime, and our threading and MP are still both bad and ugly in many places, and we don't have lots of the flashy bells that other OSes have. What we have a strong drive to incubate better quality in ourselves and the entire software community by exposing, pushing on, and redirecting bad practices in software development. Yes, OpenBSD excels at clobbering code that does careless things ; my code, new and old, still runs fine on it, thanks. You left out emphasis on security, robustness and correctness. That's why I've been using and contributing money to OpenBSD project for 13+ years. If you want an OS that has infinite backwards compat and offers all the bells and whistles, look elsewhere. Those are both anathema to OpenBSD and requests for them will be fruitless. I am not implying any desire for any other backwards compatible additions to the project. Because OpenBSD already has those! Has had them from day one, and there are good reasons for that. The one who is doing something fruitless is you. So, let's see you successfully submit patches to *remove* those non-2008.1 features and backwards compatibilities to .1 and even before, and fix the collateral damage to the distro that the minus diffs cause. I double-dog dare you. Philip
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:10:05 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2014, Ralph Siegler wrote: Well, starting with r1.54 [0], stdlib.h never declares getopt(). However, I think the conversation could continue in spite of that. I would expect motivation to be aggregated cost in the form: * a significant amount of patched ports; * a significant amount of affected port prospects; or * a significant amount of patched user programs. You happen to mention the last item. Are there other users interested in this facet of source compatibility? Also, are there other possible costs? [0] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/include/stdlib.h.diff? r1=1.53;r2=1.54;f=h You are mistaken, it was just defined in different place/way in same file, even 18 years ago it is found in OpenBSD in stdlib.h (as well as in unistd.h): Gotcha: you don't want to update a program to meet 18+ year old standards. Is your beef with OpenBSD? Or is it with POSIX for specifying in 1995 that getopt() only be declared in unistd.h and not stdlib.h? It doesn't hurt anything to provide this backward compatibility It makes the header more complex and annoying to maintain, just to support programs that haven't been updated for 18+ years. That's a negative. Wrong, the stuff is already in the headers, no maintenance necessary. what would be HARD is to remove all the non-2008.1, and fix the breakages it would cause, then modify and add calls for the missing functionality, again without breaking anything. It would be much fun and entertainment to watch such an endeavor, I'll pop popcorn for that space opera series. You may find it interesting to see how long a source tree might work without changes, but that's not of interest to OpenBSD. It's probably of *negative* interest of OpenBSD, as adding #include unistd.h is a trivial cost to the person compiling said unmaintained program, and such a program probably hasn't been scrutinized for the various sins of the past like buffer and string handling, TOCTOU violations, etc. History is neat to study, but living in it sucks. All BSD have much history in them, even with the fantastic evolution, fixes and improvements. Philip
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On 12 April 2014 10:47, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:56:52 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Best for what? best for the particular example I gave. There are others, where system gets the POSIX stamp of approval by having .h functions from a list but doesn't actually implement them or just partially implements them. Just a part of the proofs that 100% POSIX chest-thumping is silly, that spec needs some spiffing up before it should be taken 100% seriously. OpenBSD doesn't strive to be the be-all and end-all of UNIX-like OSes. We ain't realtime, and our threading and MP are still both bad and ugly in many places, and we don't have lots of the flashy bells that other OSes have. What we have a strong drive to incubate better quality in ourselves and the entire software community by exposing, pushing on, and redirecting bad practices in software development. Yes, OpenBSD excels at clobbering code that does careless things ; my code, new and old, still runs fine on it, thanks. You left out emphasis on security, robustness and correctness. That's why I've been using and contributing money to OpenBSD project for 13+ years. If you want an OS that has infinite backwards compat and offers all the bells and whistles, look elsewhere. Those are both anathema to OpenBSD and requests for them will be fruitless. I am not implying any desire for any other backwards compatible additions to the project. Because OpenBSD already has those! Has had them from day one, and there are good reasons for that. The one who is doing something fruitless is you. So, let's see you successfully submit patches to *remove* those non-2008.1 features and backwards compatibilities to .1 and even before, and fix the collateral damage to the distro that the minus diffs cause. I double-dog dare you. the distro? What the fuck is the distro? Has OpenBSD suddenly morphed into Linux? I recommend against 'double-dog' daring Philip about this (assuming your goal to to prevent the changes) since he has complete freedom to commit these changes whenever the mood strikes him. And on that day, many programs and libraries will know what it is to be roasted in the depths of a POSIX specification. Ken Philip
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:36:56 -0400, Kenneth Westerback wrote: On 12 April 2014 10:47, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:56:52 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Best for what? best for the particular example I gave. There are others, where system gets the POSIX stamp of approval by having .h functions from a list but doesn't actually implement them or just partially implements them. Just a part of the proofs that 100% POSIX chest-thumping is silly, that spec needs some spiffing up before it should be taken 100% seriously. OpenBSD doesn't strive to be the be-all and end-all of UNIX-like OSes. We ain't realtime, and our threading and MP are still both bad and ugly in many places, and we don't have lots of the flashy bells that other OSes have. What we have a strong drive to incubate better quality in ourselves and the entire software community by exposing, pushing on, and redirecting bad practices in software development. Yes, OpenBSD excels at clobbering code that does careless things ; my code, new and old, still runs fine on it, thanks. You left out emphasis on security, robustness and correctness. That's why I've been using and contributing money to OpenBSD project for 13+ years. If you want an OS that has infinite backwards compat and offers all the bells and whistles, look elsewhere. Those are both anathema to OpenBSD and requests for them will be fruitless. I am not implying any desire for any other backwards compatible additions to the project. Because OpenBSD already has those! Has had them from day one, and there are good reasons for that. The one who is doing something fruitless is you. So, let's see you successfully submit patches to *remove* those non-2008.1 features and backwards compatibilities to .1 and even before, and fix the collateral damage to the distro that the minus diffs cause. I double-dog dare you. the distro? What the fuck is the distro? Has OpenBSD suddenly morphed into Linux? that is merely slang for The Distribution, the OpenBSD project itself certainly uses the longer phrase, and sorry if the slang shorter one connotates legions of marauding penguins to you. I recommend against 'double-dog' daring Philip about this (assuming your goal to to prevent the changes) since he has complete freedom to commit these changes whenever the mood strikes him. Just my way of pointing out that attempting 100% POSIX compliance would be extraordinarily difficult; the spec has grey areas, incomplete areas, vague areas (hence the silliness of holding it up as a golden benchmark), and would necessitate some drastic changes to the code (to say nothing of the ports). The cost in man-hours would be likely too high a price for six dozen (admittedly gifted) developers to pay; and the result would only be compliance subject to certain interpretations and caveats. There are legacy support in the code that makes the OS very useful and easier to port to, to remove them would have dire consequences to the user community. And on that day, many programs and libraries will know what it is to be roasted in the depths of a POSIX specification. Ken
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: ... So, let's see you successfully submit patches to *remove* those non-2008.1 features and backwards compatibilities to .1 and even before, and fix the collateral damage to the distro that the minus diffs cause. I double-dog dare you. You're daring me to do something that I've been doing for years, and that the OpenBSD ports team *supports*, asking for our headers to be made cleaner. Ookay. Philip Guenther
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:55:13 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:17:24 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot are both missing #include unistd.h even though they use getopt. It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. I just looked on my linux box and found this in stdlib.h ... So I'm wondering about your assertion that this is not the correct header filelooking at links in your post, do you really mean FreeBSD doesn't define them there but everyone else on the planet might? He's perhaps referring to the POSIX standard, which specifies that that *in a conforming compilation environment* unistd.h MUST declare getopt() and stdlib.h MUST NOT declare getopt(). (Ya'll know that the current POSIX standard can be downloaded after a free registration, don'cha?) Philip Guenther Well Philip, had we mentioned any POSIX 2008.1 certified or compliant OS in this thread that would be an interesting point to bring up. But neither GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, nor FreeBSD is fully compliant. On the other hand, Mac OSX Mavericks is 100% compliant and certified, and per spec has, for example, sem_init and sem_destroy in the header files...but lo and behold doesn't actually implement them in the libraries. This and similar show-without-go has bummed out more than one code porter. Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Ralph
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:55:13 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:17:24 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot are both missing #include unistd.h even though they use getopt. It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. I just looked on my linux box and found this in stdlib.h ... So I'm wondering about your assertion that this is not the correct header filelooking at links in your post, do you really mean FreeBSD doesn't define them there but everyone else on the planet might? He's perhaps referring to the POSIX standard, which specifies that that *in a conforming compilation environment* unistd.h MUST declare getopt() and stdlib.h MUST NOT declare getopt(). (Ya'll know that the current POSIX standard can be downloaded after a free registration, don'cha?) Philip Guenther Well Philip, had we mentioned any POSIX 2008.1 certified or compliant OS in this thread that would be an interesting point to bring up. But neither GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, nor FreeBSD is fully compliant. On the other hand, Mac OSX Mavericks is 100% compliant and certified, and per spec has, for example, sem_init and sem_destroy in the header files...but lo and behold doesn't actually implement them in the libraries. This and similar show-without-go has bummed out more than one code porter. Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Yes, de facto standards can be important. Now, does this issue in particular--namely, the decision of which header declares getopt()--merit reconsideration? Should OpenBSD or another OS depart from POSIX in this regard? If so, what is the motivation? Ralph
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:27:03 -0430, Andres Perera wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:55:13 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:17:24 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot are both missing #include unistd.h even though they use getopt. It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. I just looked on my linux box and found this in stdlib.h ... So I'm wondering about your assertion that this is not the correct header filelooking at links in your post, do you really mean FreeBSD doesn't define them there but everyone else on the planet might? He's perhaps referring to the POSIX standard, which specifies that that *in a conforming compilation environment* unistd.h MUST declare getopt() and stdlib.h MUST NOT declare getopt(). (Ya'll know that the current POSIX standard can be downloaded after a free registration, don'cha?) Philip Guenther Well Philip, had we mentioned any POSIX 2008.1 certified or compliant OS in this thread that would be an interesting point to bring up. But neither GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, nor FreeBSD is fully compliant. On the other hand, Mac OSX Mavericks is 100% compliant and certified, and per spec has, for example, sem_init and sem_destroy in the header files...but lo and behold doesn't actually implement them in the libraries. This and similar show-without-go has bummed out more than one code porter. Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Yes, de facto standards can be important. Now, does this issue in particular--namely, the decision of which header declares getopt()--merit reconsideration? Should OpenBSD or another OS depart from POSIX in this regard? If so, what is the motivation? OpenBSD uses the magic of #ifndef to get away with defining it in two places, so following POSIX (and the OpenBSD man page) and #include unistd.h gets the getopt(3) and so Eitan should be happy. But back in the pre-1992 POSIX.2 days, it was defined (as least in some Unix I know) to be in stdlib.h. And lo and behold OpenBSD will define it there if it hasn't been defined yet. This can make old coots like me happy in the event we want to play with our old coot code from days of yore. Don't let young whippersnappers take away our security blankets, like that meanie who posted patch for removing old-EBCDIC support from a command and only leaving new fangled EBCDIC. Ralph (older than Unix)
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:27:03 -0430, Andres Perera wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:55:13 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:17:24 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot are both missing #include unistd.h even though they use getopt. It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. I just looked on my linux box and found this in stdlib.h ... So I'm wondering about your assertion that this is not the correct header filelooking at links in your post, do you really mean FreeBSD doesn't define them there but everyone else on the planet might? He's perhaps referring to the POSIX standard, which specifies that that *in a conforming compilation environment* unistd.h MUST declare getopt() and stdlib.h MUST NOT declare getopt(). (Ya'll know that the current POSIX standard can be downloaded after a free registration, don'cha?) Philip Guenther Well Philip, had we mentioned any POSIX 2008.1 certified or compliant OS in this thread that would be an interesting point to bring up. But neither GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, nor FreeBSD is fully compliant. On the other hand, Mac OSX Mavericks is 100% compliant and certified, and per spec has, for example, sem_init and sem_destroy in the header files...but lo and behold doesn't actually implement them in the libraries. This and similar show-without-go has bummed out more than one code porter. Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Yes, de facto standards can be important. Now, does this issue in particular--namely, the decision of which header declares getopt()--merit reconsideration? Should OpenBSD or another OS depart from POSIX in this regard? If so, what is the motivation? OpenBSD uses the magic of #ifndef to get away with defining it in two places, so following POSIX (and the OpenBSD man page) and #include unistd.h gets the getopt(3) and so Eitan should be happy. But back in the pre-1992 POSIX.2 days, it was defined (as least in some Unix I know) to be in stdlib.h. And lo and behold OpenBSD will define it there if it hasn't been defined yet. Well, starting with r1.54 [0], stdlib.h never declares getopt(). However, I think the conversation could continue in spite of that. I would expect motivation to be aggregated cost in the form: * a significant amount of patched ports; * a significant amount of affected port prospects; or * a significant amount of patched user programs. You happen to mention the last item. Are there other users interested in this facet of source compatibility? Also, are there other possible costs? [0] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/include/stdlib.h.diff?r1=1.53;r2=1.54;f=h
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
Well, starting with r1.54 [0], stdlib.h never declares getopt(). However, I think the conversation could continue in spite of that. I would expect motivation to be aggregated cost in the form: * a significant amount of patched ports; * a significant amount of affected port prospects; or * a significant amount of patched user programs. You happen to mention the last item. Are there other users interested in this facet of source compatibility? Also, are there other possible costs? [0] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/include/stdlib.h.diff? r1=1.53;r2=1.54;f=h You are mistaken, it was just defined in different place/way in same file, even 18 years ago it is found in OpenBSD in stdlib.h (as well as in unistd.h): http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/include/stdlib.h? rev=1.1;content-type=text%2Fplain;f=h It doesn't hurt anything to provide this backward compatibility Ralph
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014, Ralph Siegler wrote: Well, starting with r1.54 [0], stdlib.h never declares getopt(). However, I think the conversation could continue in spite of that. I would expect motivation to be aggregated cost in the form: * a significant amount of patched ports; * a significant amount of affected port prospects; or * a significant amount of patched user programs. You happen to mention the last item. Are there other users interested in this facet of source compatibility? Also, are there other possible costs? [0] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/include/stdlib.h.diff? r1=1.53;r2=1.54;f=h You are mistaken, it was just defined in different place/way in same file, even 18 years ago it is found in OpenBSD in stdlib.h (as well as in unistd.h): Gotcha: you don't want to update a program to meet 18+ year old standards. Is your beef with OpenBSD? Or is it with POSIX for specifying in 1995 that getopt() only be declared in unistd.h and not stdlib.h? It doesn't hurt anything to provide this backward compatibility It makes the header more complex and annoying to maintain, just to support programs that haven't been updated for 18+ years. That's a negative. You may find it interesting to see how long a source tree might work without changes, but that's not of interest to OpenBSD. It's probably of *negative* interest of OpenBSD, as adding #include unistd.h is a trivial cost to the person compiling said unmaintained program, and such a program probably hasn't been scrutinized for the various sins of the past like buffer and string handling, TOCTOU violations, etc. History is neat to study, but living in it sucks. Philip
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Ralph Siegler wrote: Well Philip, had we mentioned any POSIX 2008.1 certified or compliant OS in this thread that would be an interesting point to bring up. But neither GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, nor FreeBSD is fully compliant. On the other hand, Mac OSX Mavericks is 100% compliant and certified, and per spec has, for example, sem_init and sem_destroy in the header files...but lo and behold doesn't actually implement them in the libraries. This and similar show-without-go has bummed out more than one code porter. So you and other porters have taken your concerns about the incompletenes of the UNIX03 test suite to the group that see the money for it? No? Ah, so you're in that group that promulgates an alternate, complete standard with a compliance test suite which porters can rely on! No? So that makes you a programmer that wants the interfaces that didn't exist until POSIX specified them (sem_init), but doesn't like POSIX namespace rules and hasn't worked in POSIX to change them. POSIX isn't an unalloyed blessing, but nilists can whine elsewhere. Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind quarters but will compile and run code having those functions..which is better? Best for what? OpenBSD doesn't strive to be the be-all and end-all of UNIX-like OSes. We ain't realtime, and our threading and MP are still both bad and ugly in many places, and we don't have lots of the flashy bells that other OSes have. What we have a strong drive to incubate better quality in ourselves and the entire software community by exposing, pushing on, and redirecting bad practices in software development. If you want an OS that has infinite backwards compat and offers all the bells and whistles, look elsewhere. Those are both anathema to OpenBSD and requests for them will be fruitless. Philip
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:17:24 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: Hey all, I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot are both missing #include unistd.h even though they use getopt. It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. I just looked on my linux box and found this in stdlib.h #ifndef _GETOPT_DEFINED_ #define _GETOPT_DEFINED_ int getopt(int, char * const *, const char *); extern char *optarg; /* getopt(3) external variables */ extern int opterr, optind, optopt, optreset; int getsubopt(char **, char * const *, char **); extern char *suboptarg; /* getsubopt(3) external variable */ #endif /* _GETOPT_DEFINED_ */ So I'm wondering about your assertion that this is not the correct header filelooking at links in your post, do you really mean FreeBSD doesn't define them there but everyone else on the planet might? (Notice: I just paid SCO $600 license as protection against any infringement my posting of part of a linux .h file might cause)
Re: rs, jot: missing headers
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ralph Siegler rsieg...@rsiegler.org wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:17:24 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot are both missing #include unistd.h even though they use getopt. It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. I just looked on my linux box and found this in stdlib.h ... So I'm wondering about your assertion that this is not the correct header filelooking at links in your post, do you really mean FreeBSD doesn't define them there but everyone else on the planet might? He's perhaps referring to the POSIX standard, which specifies that that *in a conforming compilation environment* unistd.h MUST declare getopt() and stdlib.h MUST NOT declare getopt(). (Ya'll know that the current POSIX standard can be downloaded after a free registration, don'cha?) Philip Guenther
rs, jot: missing headers
Hey all, I was looking through some OpenBSD code and noticed that rs and jot are both missing #include unistd.h even though they use getopt. It seems that stdlib.h defines getopt on OpenBSD. However, this is not the correct header file, and it makes it not possible to compile OpenBSD's utilities on other platforms. There may be additional instances of this throughout the OpenBSD tree but these are the ones I noticed. Index: rs.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rs/rs.c,v retrieving revision 1.22 diff -u -r1.22 rs.c --- rs.c 3 Dec 2012 19:26:24 - 1.22 +++ rs.c 15 Nov 2013 04:00:42 - @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ #include stdio.h #include stdlib.h #include string.h +#include unistd.h long flags; #define TRANSPOSE 01 Index: jot.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/jot/jot.c,v retrieving revision 1.21 diff -u -r1.21 jot.c --- jot.c 30 Jan 2012 14:08:18 - 1.21 +++ jot.c 15 Nov 2013 03:59:14 - @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ #include stdio.h #include stdlib.h #include string.h +#include unistd.h #define REPS_DEF 100 #define BEGIN_DEF 1 [ in case my patches get mangled: http://people.freebsd.org/~eadler/files/o/0001.jot.diff and http://people.freebsd.org/~eadler/files/o/0002.rs.diff ] -- Eitan Adler FreeBSD Source, Ports, Doc committer
