< said:
> This must pass through -arch before any implementation. Remember, not
> every committer reads current.
Also remember, not every committer reads arch.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On 08-Jul-00 Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> This must pass through -arch before any implementation. Remember, not
> every committer reads current.
The kernel hackers do since they are running current. :)
> John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> sys/
>> ${MACHINE}/ - stay mostly the same, the directo
This must pass through -arch before any implementation. Remember, not
every committer reads current.
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> sys/
> ${MACHINE}/ - stay mostly the same, the directories under here
> mirror the sys/ directories. E.g. MD bootstrap
>
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > Sounds good to me actually. Although, should it be ${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile
> > instead in keeping with the mentioned goal of keeping all MD stuff under
> > ${MACHINE_ARCH}?
>
> I would prefer /sys/compile/ as it makes it easier to make a
> symlink to another place. U
Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Robert
>Watson writes:
> : On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> :
> : > The headers will always be installed in the right place in
> : > /usr/include: Makefile's are editable. As far as kernel
> : > compiles, symlink
Greetings all,
I have to commend you all on this thread; as mundane as it may have seemed on the
outset. It is nice to see that everyone is kind of working together to at the
very least consider this proposal, especially now that most of smoke has cleared.
I'll admit I'm more of a casual observer
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> > I would like also suggest a directory for optional kernel
> > interfaces which doesn't belong to drivers (syscall and sysctl extensions
> > for example) and can't go under sys/dev/. They can be considered as
> > 'kernel libraries' and may live u
On 06-Jul-00 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: pccard/ - formerly sys/pccard
>
> Maintainers Veto. Do not do this. This sys/pccard will go away in
> time. There will be a sys/dev/pccard when newcard comes in. DO NOT
> MOVE sys/pccard.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Robert
Watson writes:
: On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
:
: > The headers will always be installed in the right place in
: > /usr/include: Makefile's are editable. As far as kernel
: > compiles, symlinks can be created in the work directory as
: > one poss
Boris Popov wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > Here is my proposal, adjusted a little as per suggestions. It attempts to
> > follow these loose guidelines:
> >
> > - MD code under sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}
> > - device drivers (including bus's such as cam and usb) under sys/dev
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> Here is my proposal, adjusted a little as per suggestions. It attempts to
> follow these loose guidelines:
>
> - MD code under sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}
> - device drivers (including bus's such as cam and usb) under sys/dev
> - file systems under fs/
> - netw
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 12:47:06PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> I could do this before I have an Alpha assuming that we don't need a
> working Alpha port yet. The question is if we have enough time for it?
> On the other hand, it doesn't have to be perfect, as long as the i386
> port works...
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 03:53:12PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > Good point. For the linuxulator this has been discussed before and
> > something in the line off...
> > ...came out of it.
>
> Even before you get an Alpha, would you be able to seperate the Linux
> bi
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 03:53:12PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Good point. For the linuxulator this has been discussed before and
> something in the line off...
> ...came out of it.
Even before you get an Alpha, would you be able to seperate the Linux
bits before 4.1-R so the 4.x sys/ tree s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > The headers will always be installed in the right place in
> > /usr/include: Makefile's are editable. As far as kernel
> > compiles, symlinks can be created in the work direc
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> The headers will always be installed in the right place in
> /usr/include: Makefile's are editable. As far as kernel
> compiles, symlinks can be created in the work directory as
> one possible solution. For example,
> sys/compile/i386/GENERIC/netinet ->
On 05-Jul-00 Kenjiro Cho wrote:
>
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> Notes:
>> - There has been one vote so far to ditch the whole net/ reorg, although
>> other people have expressed support for it.
>
> What do you intend to do with the networking headers?
> The socket API standards specify the socket
On 05-Jul-00 Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>
>> Here is my proposal, adjusted a little as per suggestions. It attempts to
>> follow these loose guidelines:
>
> ...
>
>> net/ - move existing contents to net/base or something
>> similar
>>atalk/
> Here is my proposal, adjusted a little as per suggestions. It attempts to
> follow these loose guidelines:
...
> net/ - move existing contents to net/base or something
> similar
>atalk/ - formerly sys/netatalk
>atm/
John Baldwin wrote:
> Notes:
> - There has been one vote so far to ditch the whole net/ reorg, although
> other people have expressed support for it.
What do you intend to do with the networking headers?
The socket API standards specify the socket related headers and their
paths. At least, "n
* John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000705 00:04] wrote:
> I've tried to update the document to reflect the comments I've
> received so far:
>
> Current directory structure:
>
> sys/
> ${MACHINE}/ - MD stuff
> conf/ - MD kernel config files
[gag, snip]
> Here is m
I've tried to update the document to reflect the comments I've
received so far:
Current directory structure:
sys/
${MACHINE}/ - MD stuff
conf/ - MD kernel config files
${MACHINE/ - MD code
include/- MD includes
... -
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> They should be stated because they need to be moved
> linux - Linux binary compat
> Also buses
> isa - there is some MI stuff in here
Good point. For the linuxulator this has been discussed before and
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sunday, July 02, 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > Actually the whole src/sys/compile thing should go away, it is
> > one of the last things that has to be dealt with for a totally
> > read-only mounted /usr/src. IMHO it should be moved to /usr/obj,
On 02-Jul-00 David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 12:36:59AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>> svr4/ - first, is this MI? If it isn't, then move it under
>> sys/i386/ where it belongs. If it isn't,
>> then I presume
>
On 02-Jul-00 Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
>> encapsulation. Of course, someone more familiar with the actual code
>> in the tree might provide some better insight on the feasibility of
>> splitting these up.
>
> Don't, or else legions of network people will curse you to the end of
> your
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes:
> : On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 01:31:28PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> : > : cd blah is currently
> : > : cd ../../compile/${KERNNAME}
> : > : it becomes
> : > : cd /usr/obj/`pwd`/${KERNNAME}
> : >
> : > M
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes:
: On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 01:31:28PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
: > : cd blah is currently
: > : cd ../../compile/${KERNNAME}
: > : it becomes
: > : cd /usr/obj/`pwd`/${KERNNAME}
: >
: > My take on this is that it would make it slightly harder
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 01:31:28PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> : cd blah is currently
> : cd ../../compile/${KERNNAME}
> : it becomes
> : cd /usr/obj/`pwd`/${KERNNAME}
>
> My take on this is that it would make it slightly harder to develop
> kernel stuff in the tree. I don't like that prospect,
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 10:44:22AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> compile/ - no change
> >
> > I'd change this into compile/${MACHINE_ARCH} so that a single shared source
> > tree can be used to build [alpha,i386] kernels. In the current setup one
> > gets clashes with GENERIC etc
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 12:36:59AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> svr4/ - first, is this MI? If it isn't, then move it under
> sys/i386/ where it belongs. If it isn't,
> then I presume
There are both MI and MD bits of svr4 and
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 12:36:59AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> Current directory structure:
>
> sys/
> ${MACHINE_ARCH}/ - MD stuff
> conf/ - MD kernel config files
> ${MACHINE_ARCH}/- MD code
> include/- MD includes
> ... - var
"Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 02, 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > Actually the whole src/sys/compile thing should go away, it is
> > > one of the last things that has to be dealt with for a totally
> > > read-only mounted /usr/src. IMHO it should be moved to /usr/obj,
> > >
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Rodney W. Grimes" writes:
: Just the argument to the cd has changed, the command sequence is
: still:
: cd blah
: make depend && make && make install.
:
: cd blah is currently
: cd ../../compile/${KERNNAME}
: it becomes
: cd /usr/obj/`pwd`/${KERNNAME}
:
: config(8
< said:
> encapsulation. Of course, someone more familiar with the actual code
> in the tree might provide some better insight on the feasibility of
> splitting these up.
Don't, or else legions of network people will curse you to the end of
your days.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Si
> On Sunday, July 02, 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > Actually the whole src/sys/compile thing should go away, it is
> > one of the last things that has to be dealt with for a totally
> > read-only mounted /usr/src. IMHO it should be moved to /usr/obj,
> > and /usr/obj should, if it hasn't alre
...
> I feel masochistic at the moment, so here's a suggestion. Feel free
> to rip it all up to pieces, ya'll. And to start off: I like green
> bikesheds. (I.e. let's settle on something sensible and not get
I prefer blue ones :-)
...
>
> Ok (/me dons the asbestos suit, climbs into the concr
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 11:06:58AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 02, 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > Sounds good to me actually. Although, should it be ${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile
> > > instead in keeping with the mentioned goal of keeping all MD stuff under
> > > ${MACHINE_ARCH}
On Sunday, July 02, 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> Actually the whole src/sys/compile thing should go away, it is
> one of the last things that has to be dealt with for a totally
> read-only mounted /usr/src. IMHO it should be moved to /usr/obj,
> and /usr/obj should, if it hasn't already, be en
> On Sunday, July 02, 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Sounds good to me actually. Although, should it be ${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile
> > instead in keeping with the mentioned goal of keeping all MD stuff under
> > ${MACHINE_ARCH}?
>
>I think that compile/${MACHINE_ARCH} is the proper way to do
> t
>
> On 02-Jul-00 Chris Costello wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 02, 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>ip/ - IPv4, IPv6, and IPsec bits from sys/netinet{,6}
> >>tcp/ - TCP""" "
> >>udp/ - UDP"
On Sunday, July 02, 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> Sounds good to me actually. Although, should it be ${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile
> instead in keeping with the mentioned goal of keeping all MD stuff under
> ${MACHINE_ARCH}?
I think that compile/${MACHINE_ARCH} is the proper way to do
this. Everythi
On 02-Jul-00 Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sunday, July 02, 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
>>ip/ - IPv4, IPv6, and IPsec bits from sys/netinet{,6}
>>tcp/ - TCP""" "
>>udp/ - UDP"""
On 02-Jul-00 Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 12:36:59AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> Ok (/me dons the asbestos suit, climbs into the concrete room and locks
>> the door.) Here is my proposal. It attempts to follow these loose guidelines:
>
>> compile/ - no chang
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 12:36:59AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> Ok (/me dons the asbestos suit, climbs into the concrete room and locks
> the door.) Here is my proposal. It attempts to follow these loose guidelines:
> compile/ - no change
I'd change this into compile/${MACHINE_
On Sunday, July 02, 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
>ip/ - IPv4, IPv6, and IPsec bits from sys/netinet{,6}
>tcp/ - TCP""" "
>udp/ - UDP""" "
Can this really be separated to
On 01-Jul-00 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>> Yes he did. Talk to various committers and you'll see that many have
>> ideas where files should live. There have been long threads on this
>> issue that got nowhere. The reason things are in such a messy state is
>> when something new is brought in, or
> Yes he did. Talk to various committers and you'll see that many have
> ideas where files should live. There have been long threads on this
> issue that got nowhere. The reason things are in such a messy state is
> when something new is brought in, or is changed suffiently much for a
> repo co
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes:
>On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 01:26:17PM -0400, Will Andrews wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 07:14:35PM +0400, Ilmar S. Habibulin wrote:
>> > Some order, i suppose.
>>
>> There is plenty of order in the current system.
>
>Feh.
>
>> Garrett Woll
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 01:26:17PM -0400, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 07:14:35PM +0400, Ilmar S. Habibulin wrote:
> > Some order, i suppose.
>
> There is plenty of order in the current system.
Feh.
> Garrett Wollman suggested that you answer this question carefully, and
> you
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 07:14:35PM +0400, Ilmar S. Habibulin wrote:
> Some order, i suppose.
There is plenty of order in the current system. Garrett Wollman
suggested that you answer this question carefully, and you have not done
that, but provide a vague summary of your beliefs.
Moreover, many
On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > Can somebody move thing around in sys? I mean put all fs code under let
> > say '/sys/fs' subdir. And all network protocols code under /sys/net
> > (or netproto)?
>
> Why? What benefit would that have?
Some order, i suppose.
To Unsubscribe: sen
< said:
> Can somebody move thing around in sys? I mean put all fs code under let
> say '/sys/fs' subdir. And all network protocols code under /sys/net
> (or netproto)?
Why? What benefit would that have?
-GAWollman
PS: Be careful how you answer this question.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > Can somebody move thing around in sys? I mean put all fs code under let
> > say '/sys/fs' subdir. And all network protocols code under /sys/net
> > (or netproto)?
> Why? Because you like it better? Or to confuse the h*ck out of people who
> are used to
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 06:12:51PM +0400, Ilmar S. Habibulin wrote:
>
> Can somebody move thing around in sys? I mean put all fs code under let
> say '/sys/fs' subdir. And all network protocols code under /sys/net
> (or netproto)?
Why? Because you like it better? Or to confuse the h*ck out of p
Can somebody move thing around in sys? I mean put all fs code under let
say '/sys/fs' subdir. And all network protocols code under /sys/net
(or netproto)?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
56 matches
Mail list logo
