christos@ wrote: > On Mar 15, 4:47pm, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote: > -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/distrib/common/bootimage > > | Well, "old code eliminations" gives nothing to users. > > You are right, but it makes it cheaper for us to maintain things > in the long run and improves consistency and robustness.
IMO we should rather focus on marketing than consistency for developers... > | I would rather like to see a proper migration plan > | how to eliminate it without regressions, especially on install. > | (If installation fails we won't get possible new users) > > I don't think that we are going to be getting new users from the > sun2 or sun3 ports... And even if we do, these are the "expert" > users who will help us debug the problem. You should re-read PRs. There were much more ports that failed on 6.0. If you changed PTYFS mandatory for sysinst and you forget to add file-system PTYFS to some installation kernel config files, the similar failures could happen. > | In pre-6.0 days compat pty nodes were removed > | from MAKEDEV all target without annoucement, then > | a certain number of Tier-II users failed to install > | on their favorite machines with unclear "openpty() failed" > | messages during installation. > | > | One possible kludge is adding "file-system PTYFS" into conf/std, > | but I don't think we can make consensus with it. > > Or go and add it to all the install kernels (as I mentioned before). > There is no precedence for adding filesystems to conf/std. In pre-6.0 days, we tried to fix all installation MAKEDEV targets, but actually it failed. "It's easier said than done." --- Izumi Tsutsui