Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:53:50 +0200 From: Cyrille Lefevre <cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org>, "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: remove xten from the base system? Message-ID: <20020613195350.GB46292@gits.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020613030718.43059A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <20020612234305.W2539-100000@master.gorean.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020613030718.43059A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:09:05AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Doug Barton wrote: > > > 1. Some people actually use it. > > 2. The code has kernel bits (thus it's hard to port, not sure how true > > this is). > > 3. It's easier to keep in synch if it's in the tree, since people will see > > it get broken. > > The model used for Coda is to store the kernel module in the base tree, > but keep the userland stuff in a port. This allows the kernel module to > track changes in the base system kernel closely, removing that maintenance > issue and keeping it in synch, but doesn't keep the stuff in the base > system that doesn't really fit well. xten kernel sources are only 40 KB and xten utility (w/o s) is only 32 KB while coda and such projects take far more space than this small one. does this really need a full thread about so few bytes ? Cyrille. -- Cyrille Lefevre mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020613195350.GB46292>