From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 31 10:23:32 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F338F16A41F; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:23:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F92A43D4C; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:23:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (tradenet-it.gw.ai.net [205.134.160.6] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7VANTbr061965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:23:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:22:29 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: juli mallett Message-ID: <20050831062229.29ddae02@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20050831023036.GA25335@toxic.magnesium.net> References: <200508251022.j7PAMWFO030767@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050825195416.GA65980@toxic.magnesium.net> <20050826062242.734ffae4@localhost> <20050828221142.GA71466@toxic.magnesium.net> <20050830200219.534e6d72@localhost> <20050831023036.GA25335@toxic.magnesium.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.13 (GTK+ 2.6.8; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: juli mallett , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libufs Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:23:32 -0000 On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:30:36 -1000 juli mallett wrote: > * Tom Rhodes [ Date: 2005-08-30 ] > [ w.r.t. Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libufs Makefile ] > > On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:11:42 -1000 > > juli mallett wrote: > > > > > * Tom Rhodes [ Date: 2005-08-26 ] > > > [ w.r.t. Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libufs Makefile ] > > > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:54:16 -1000 > > > > juli mallett wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Tom Rhodes [ Date: 2005-08-25 ] > > > > > [ w.r.t. cvs commit: src/lib/libufs Makefile ] > > > > > > trhodes 2005-08-25 10:22:30 UTC > > > > > > > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified files: > > > > > > lib/libufs Makefile > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > Hook getino.3 up to the build and link it to putino.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > PR: 83820 > > > > > > > > > > This is wrong. As the PR states it was purposely not hooked > > > > > up. inode.c doesn't have functions which look like the > > > > > interfaces you've just published, and there isn't even a > > > > > putino(3) in there. If the cause of the confusion is the > > > > > manpage being listed in Xr's or something, then comment out > > > > > the Xr's. This is very obviously wrong, if you try to use > > > > > what's in the manpage I committed. Probably it shoudln't be > > > > > in CVS at all. The reason I put it there at the time is that > > > > > it was ready and inode.c was about ready to hit CVS, but that > > > > > got dropped. Now, if you want to help me remember what P4 > > > > > tree that inode.c was in, and pick up whereever I left off, > > > > > that'd be awesome. > > > > > > > > Let me understand real quick, it was purposely not hooked up > > > > because it was the only file not updated? I mean, I can back > > > > this out, no problem; however, I fail to see why nothing is > > > > going on with this code. No clue on the branch, sorry. > > > > > > It was purposely not hooked up because the code that it documents > > > isn't in CVS. > > > > > > > I know now why it wasn't hooked up to the build. What I'm asking > > is: > > > > 1: Is this currently maintained? and > > 2: What utilities are currently using this? > > I don't remember what uses getino() as implemented in libufs. Maybe > nothing, in which case it can just be removed. In any event, the > interface that is there is bad and shouldn't be documented. That > said, it isn't currently maintained very well, so the odds of me > remembering where the new code is and what's wrong with it are low, > so in any event, the right thing to do is for the manpage to not be > installed, and to not be in CVS. > > Thanx, > juli. > Backed out, as you know. We'll discuss this offline. :) -- Tom Rhodes