> Simple, Distro installed stuff goes in /usr. User installed stuff goes in /
> usr/local/. Nice clean separation. Been taht way since I learned UNIX in
> the early 1980's.
If it was as simple as that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If stuff goes into /usr/local/, what do I have to d
Yo Hal!
On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:19:15 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> > As it is now, the OS installed version of ntpd will conflict with a
> > source installed version. Not good. FHS compliance would be
> > nice.
>
> I think it would be really helpful if somebody would write up
> something that c
Yo Hal!
On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 20:07:18 -0700
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> How much hardware has support for long doubles?
Wrong question. Much harware has NO hardware support (FPU) for any
floating point, so it is done in the CPU, not FPU.
Right question: how many C compilers support long dou
> On the other hand, the thought of trying to do significant structural
> changes *as we verify a translation* scares me - I do not think I am good
> enough to take *that* risk, and I'm dubious that anyone is.
Right. But that assumes the goal is to exactly replicate the current code.
Given th
Hal Murray :
> But if you do a direct translation, you end up with code that still has all
> the crappy structure that you started with.
That is true. But crappy structure can be cleaned up after the
translation, and I'm particularly good at that kind of refactoring in
a language with a richer t
> Pretty direct, I'd say. I wouldn't even have introducing *methods* as an
> initial goal. My experience is that trying to re-engineer while you
> translate is a dangerous rathole - you can easily end up at a place where
> you've lost track of the semantic mapping between the original code and t
Jason Azze via devel :
> Whoops. I failed to list reply.
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Jason Azze wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel
> > wrote:
> >> Here's my big question about the next year of development: should we
> >> be moving the codebase out of C
Whoops. I failed to list reply.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Jason Azze wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel
> wrote:
>> Here's my big question about the next year of development: should we
>> be moving the codebase out of C to Go?
>
> Would this be a direct tra
John D. Bell :
> Not to be the grognard here, but trying to weigh in from the
> (theoretical) customers' perspective.
>
> Since we're trying to get adoption by big-site sysadmins, who are (or
> tend to be) a technically conservative bunch, I'm concerned that they
> will see code in a "brand-new" l
On 11/04/2017 07:59 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> Here's my big question about the next year of development: should we
> be moving the codebase out of C to Go?
>
> I think the project is feasible and the potential gains are large, but
> I don't want to start anything without being sure o
On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 10:22:25PM -0700, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
>
> While looking at some code, I noticed several symbols that are sometimes
> protected with an ifdef and sometimes assumed to exist.
>
> I think they are all required by POSIX, and thus the ifdefs are not needed.
>
> Is the
11 matches
Mail list logo
