On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I think you're missing the point a little.
>
> The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
> about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I
> think you should leave these changes bake for a while and let people
>
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:21:14PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> David,
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:35 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:56:31AM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> >> You still failed to name a single compelling reason to leave profiled
> >> libs even in -CURRENT.
> >
> >
on 02/12/2011 20:40 John Baldwin said the following:
> On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/2 John Baldwin:
>>> On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
>
> Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to alway
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Lucas Holt wrote:
> What if it was still included in tinderbox builds and releases. For the
> latter, the profiled versions could be in a separate distribution set much
> like doc or games. The ugly part is freebsd-update..
>
> It could still be off by default i
On 12/02/11 19:39, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Isn't this about user choice, and making sensible defaults?
There are two or three "users" out of thousands complaining about the
default. If the extra build time bugs you that much, I'll contribute
towards buying you better build hardware, too.
Well
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> About the donations page et al ... that's set up for cash donations.
> Hardware doesn't go through there very well. I don't care about tax
> receipts. I'd rather just send the gear directly to any people who can
> legitimately use it (i.
2011/12/2 John Baldwin :
> On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> 2011/12/2 John Baldwin:
>>>
>>> On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
>
>
> Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true
What if it was still included in tinderbox builds and releases. For the latter,
the profiled versions could be in a separate distribution set much like doc or
games. The ugly part is freebsd-update..
It could still be off by default in the buildworld as anyone smart enough to do
source upgrad
On 12/1/11 5:04 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
you (committers)
I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
"you (committers)" any more... :-)
The rea
About the donations page et al ... that's set up for cash donations.
Hardware doesn't go through there very well. I don't care about tax
receipts. I'd rather just send the gear directly to any people who can
legitimately use it (i.e. someone with an @freebsd.org address, or someone
with an @f
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:16:33PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 08:01:37PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > and last: upgrade flex to the latest upstream version (it will need the m4
> > upgrade) while here I'll move back flex to contrib/
> > patches can be found there:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> Isn't this about user choice, and making sensible defaults?
>
>
> There are two or three "users" out of thousands complaining about the
> default. If the extra build time bugs you that much, I'll contribute
> towards buying you better bu
Speaking of throwing hardware at people, I have a couple of Sun V100s that
could go to a good home for FreeBSD Sparc development purposes. They come
equipped with 1GB of RAM and a pair of 80GB disks. If anyone can make a
legitimate case for them, drop me a note.
--lyndon
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Ryan Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > No, these days 'obsolete' seems to mean 'it does not have a sexy
> > Flash-driven web GUI.'
>
> In this case, 'obsolete' means it's a difficult-to-use tool that
> requires re
On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/12/2 John Baldwin:
On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when
kdb was
active). But I think these two changes should cover c
Isn't this about user choice, and making sensible defaults?
There are two or three "users" out of thousands complaining about the
default. If the extra build time bugs you that much, I'll contribute
towards buying you better build hardware, too.
__
On 2 Dec 2011 17:07, "Lyndon Nerenberg" wrote:
>>
>> Obsolete does not mean it doesn't work.
>
>
> No, these days 'obsolete' seems to mean 'it does not have a sexy
Flash-driven web GUI.'
Straw man argument. This is irrelevant.
> Profiling is a simple basic tool that makes it easy to quickly fin
In this case, 'obsolete' means it's a difficult-to-use tool that
requires recompiling your application, can't be used in production,
doesn't work when shared libraries are in the picture, offers
limited-to-no visibility into the underlying reasons why a particular
code path is a hotspot and introd
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> No, these days 'obsolete' seems to mean 'it does not have a sexy
> Flash-driven web GUI.'
In this case, 'obsolete' means it's a difficult-to-use tool that
requires recompiling your application, can't be used in production,
doesn't work wh
2011/12/2 John Baldwin :
> On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
>>>
>>> Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when
>>> kdb was
>>> active). But I think these two changes should cover critical_exit() ok.
>>>
Obsolete does not mean it doesn't work.
No, these days 'obsolete' seems to mean 'it does not have a sexy
Flash-driven web GUI.'
Profiling is a simple basic tool that makes it easy to quickly find code
execution hot-spots. It's not dtrace, or any other plethora of tools that
do a more exten
On 2 Dec 2011 16:54, "Lyndon Nerenberg" wrote:
>>
>> Using profiled libs and gprof to profile your code has been obsolete
>> in FreeBSD on i386 and amd64 for over six years now.
>
>
> Funny, it still seems to work on my systems.
>
>
I wonder if you're either not reading these emails properly or d
Using profiled libs and gprof to profile your code has been obsolete
in FreeBSD on i386 and amd64 for over six years now.
Funny, it still seems to work on my systems.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinf
Something else I forgot to mention ...
The point of -CURRENT is to make sure everything works before it becomes
-STABLE and -RELEASE. Not building significant components of the system
ensures those components don't get tested. This includes the actual build
process, as well as the underlying
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> If you choose not to profile your code, that's entirely your choice.
> Breaking this functionality for everyone else who *does* make the effort to
> profile their code is a non-starter.
Using profiled libs and gprof to profile your code h
On 26.11.2011 07:29, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Bernhard Froehlich wrote:
On 25.11.2011 08:02, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
With the following installed and all the prerequest ports for vbox
when I
attempt to boot a default machine setup for freebsd guest OS
install it
f
Nothing is being broken here, just a default being changed.
Users make up a greater proportion of our userbase than developers, so
sensible defaults for them are more appropriate, right?
This has no impact on non-developer end-users.
For "developer" end-users, this has a huge impact. You are
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:23:40PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2011 15:57, "Lyndon Nerenberg" wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you choose not to profile your code, that's entirely your choice.
>> Breaking this functionality for everyone else who *does* make the effort to
>> profile their code is a non-s
On 2 Dec 2011 15:57, "Lyndon Nerenberg" wrote:
>
> Max, I think a reasonable default is to continue building and shipping
profiled libraries. This keeps FreeBSD consistent with every other UNIX
variant released in the last (at least) 30 years.
>
> If you personally find profiled library builds sl
Max, I think a reasonable default is to continue building and shipping
profiled libraries. This keeps FreeBSD consistent with every other UNIX
variant released in the last (at least) 30 years.
If you personally find profiled library builds slow you down too much, a
one line addition to your /
On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when kdb was
active). But I think these two changes should cover critical_exit() ok.
I attempted to start a discussion about this a
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
>> Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when kdb
>> was
>> active). But I think these two changes should cover critical_exit() ok.
>>
>
> I attempted to start
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:27:34PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> > Hello!
> ...
> > As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
> > compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
>
> Well. We _could_ replace it with SCCS.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:27:34PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> Hello!
...
> As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
> compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
Well. We _could_ replace it with SCCS.
--
- d...@freebsd.org d...@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Why le
I think you're missing the point a little.
The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I
think you should leave these changes bake for a while and let people
get comfortable with the changing status quo.
Adr
Peter,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Dec-02 16:27:34 +0700, Max Khon wrote:
>>I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
>>dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
>>taken.
>
> I'd agree that it's still too ea
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:17:21AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 05:20:17PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:04:50PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > > > I wonder why the waiting_threads stuff is needed at all. The cv could
> > > > > be w
On 01.12.2011 09:37, Bernhard Froehlich wrote:
On 01.12.2011 00:07, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011 05:32 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 26/11/2011 18:33 Gleb Kurtsou said the following:
> Using new vm_page_alloc_contig() may be a better option here.
> Can't help with patch, stuck
On 2011-Dec-02 16:27:34 +0700, Max Khon wrote:
>I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
>dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
>taken.
I'd agree that it's still too early.
>As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:22:10 +1100
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2011 at 1:50:19 +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 21:31:18 +0200
> > George Kontostanos wrote:
> >>
> >> Does this mean that loading ahci in loader.conf is useless ?
> >
> > No, I load mine f
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 04:23:11PM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011, George Liaskos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > One example is Google's tcmalloc [1], is this behaviour intended?
> >
> > [1]
> > http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/source/browse/trunk/src/maybe_threads.cc
>
>
^ What version of FreeBSD do you run? Do you not have a ugen manpage? Can you
run "man ugen"?
^ I have the manpages for ugen, and "man usb", also "man 4 usb", but no diff as
such.
^ I guess ugen manpage failed to reflect becoming part of usb.
^ Tom
> There is:
> share/man/man4/ugen.4
>
Max Khon wrote:
Hello!
I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
taken.
As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
Those who
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
> Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when kdb
> was
> active). But I think these two changes should cover critical_exit() ok.
>
I attempted to start a discussion about this a few times already :-)
Should we tr
on 02/12/2011 03:04 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
>>> you (committers)
>>
>> I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
>> "you (committe
Hello!
I know that it is too early to speak about this, but I would like the
dust in the mailing lists to settle down before real actions can be
taken.
As soon as ports/ (and doc/) are moved to SVN I do not see any
compelling reasons for keeping CVS in the base system.
Those who still use it for
David,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:35 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:56:31AM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
>> You still failed to name a single compelling reason to leave profiled
>> libs even in -CURRENT.
>
> Sorry Joe, I don't think your reasoning is compelling.
> I'm sure you know
David,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:43 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:57:20PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, David O'Brien
> wrote:
> > If you go with (2) above, we'll still have *tons* of ports that want a
> > > libreadline, so we'll just end up
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:57:20PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
> If you go with (2) above, we'll still have *tons* of ports that want a
> > libreadline, so we'll just end up growing a port of it and we'll wind up
> > with a libreadline on the syste
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:56:31AM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> You still failed to name a single compelling reason to leave profiled
> libs even in -CURRENT.
Sorry Joe, I don't think your reasoning is compelling.
I'm sure you know how to stick "NO_PROFILE=true" in your /etc/src.conf.
How far do you
David,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
Agreed and known. If the application(s) using libreadline weren't
> already GPL I wouldn't have spoken up.
>
> When I added the libreadline compatibility to libedit, I changed all the
> non-GPL libreadline uses to libedit.
Nope. You
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 08:41:12PM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 05:55:37PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:02:23PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> > > It is possible to build and link our in-tree gdb & friends with libedit
> > > after r228114.
> > > The r
52 matches
Mail list logo
