Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:33:11 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Suggest to upgrade some software in base Message-ID: <5FAC72E6-C942-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <40E05709.9010609@alumni.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jon Noack wrote: > On 06/28/04 07:52, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: >> Jon Noack wrote: >>> On 06/27/04 12:02, David O'Brien wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 04:54:08PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: >>>>> I digged through our base system and looked for versions of >>>>> contributed soft. I found these program which could (and I think >>>>> should) be easily and painlessly upgraded (before 5.3 as 5-STABLE) >>>>> because they are outdated etc... these are: >>>>> >>>>> file - 3.41 -> 4.09 >>>>> Painless upgrade and the benefit is much newer magic file >>>>> ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/ >>>> >>>> Only semi-painless. The code and how it is built has changed >>>> around a >>>> lot, else I would have upgraded it by now. That said, in progress; >>>> but >>>> lower priority than my toolchain work. >>>> And why does this have to happen before 5-STABLE? I can certainly >>>> MFC >>>> something like this. >>> >>> Don't import until FILE 4.10 is released. I've submitted a patch to >>> Christos Zoulas for inclusion in 4.10 that *greatly* increases the >>> accuracy of FILE for FreeBSD. As soon as I see FILE 4.10 released >>> (with my patch), I'll be pleading for an import... >> Seems like Christos has been swamped by readelf.c patches :) I must >> admit that I didn't care about 4.6.2... >> Anyway, 4.09 is an improvement, and the import of 4.10 should be >> trivial afterwards, so why wait? > > I agree that 4.09 is a huge improvement (although it's wrong for > FreeBSD 4.10+, at least it correctly detects 5.x for the time being. > however, as soon as we we get 5-STABLE it'll still say it's -CURRENT). > The biggest issue will be the upgrade from 3.41 -> 4.x, so the 4.09 -> > 4.10 upgrade should be trivial as you say. > > My only concern was conservation of limited developer resources. If > someone wants to import 4.09 with the intent of following up to 4.10, > go for it. However, in my opinion FILE 4.10 should be primary goal. As said before: the update is sitting in my local repository, ready to commit. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5FAC72E6-C942-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914>