Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:44:19 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Alex Keahan <alex@hightemplar.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFD: XMLification of NOTES Message-ID: <20040331054419.GA44221@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200403310727.48043.alex@hightemplar.com> References: <20040328094048.GA40406@phantom.cris.net> <20040330232429.GA65170@phantom.cris.net> <xzpn05xq4bh.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200403310727.48043.alex@hightemplar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 07:27:48AM +0200, Alex Keahan wrote: > On Wednesday 31 Mar 2004 1:54 am, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > Alexey Zelkin <phantom@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 05:05:24PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > > > NOTES is not intended as a list of supported device and options. We > > > > have src/sys/conf/files* and src/sys/conf/options* for that. > > > > > > Strange. IMO LINT was existed for exactly this reason > > > > Your opinion does not matter. The purpose of LINT is to cover as much > > code as possible. Why do you think it's called LINT? >=20 > Why doesn't his opinion matter? >=20 > Perhaps my opinion does not matter either, but as a developer and > long-time FreeBSD user, I don't think that XMLification of NOTES is > such a bad idea. >=20 > Having said that, I can also see why some developers would be opposed > to the idea. Apart from neophobia and an obligation to fight to keep > Unix pure, simple and free from modern-day buzzword nonsense, the main > reason for the hostility and ridicule with which Alexey's idea was treate= d is > the simple fact that an XML kernel configuration tool would likely shift = the > blame for misconfigured kernels from the end-user to the developer. What an odd comment. You sound pretty sure of yourself, though...on what basis do you make this assertion? > Whereas previously a developer could add a new option or remove an > existing one without having to think twice about it, a strict XML schema > would force the developer to adhere to higher standards, explicitly evalu= ate > and list the dependencies and possible incompatibilities and reconcile the > new options with the multitude of the existing configuration possibilitie= s. >=20 > A good thing for the end-user? Certainly. At the moment, a user who h= as > the misfortune of breaking his system by adding an "option FOO" to his > kernel without the required corresponding magical "option BAR" will be > told to "go read the mailing list archives", "go read UPDATING" or simply > "go away". >=20 > With an XML-based dependency system in place, the blame would be > entirely on the developer who had forgotten to update the NOTES file or > had done so incorrectly. >=20 > An XML-based list of supported devices and options would also allow the > creation of a kernel configuration tool, similar to what Linux has had fo= r as > long as I can remember. Again, a good thing for the end user. Don't change the topic. XML is not required for any of that, and someone could just as easily write those tools without it. Similarly, it's just as wrong to assume that changing to XML will magically cause all these tools to appear. Kris --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAalqzWry0BWjoQKURApX9AKDNH/Gq2u8QxSu8wrnozJJUdg2kbgCgoKd+ bake6g5nS2+Q1h5lr3Hc3mE= =3Gm3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040331054419.GA44221>