Date: 06 Apr 1998 02:23:06 -0500 From: sfarrell+lists@farrell.org To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Softupdate for 2.2.6? Message-ID: <87af9z2z39.fsf@phaedrus.uchicago.edu> In-Reply-To: Terry Lambert's message of "Mon, 6 Apr 1998 01:25:04 %2B0000 (GMT)" References: <199804060125.SAA09720@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> writes: > > > > If patches were provided, say for soft updates, would they be > > > > integrated, or would thy have to remain "third party"? > > > > > > Would said patches work? > > > > > > Softupdates in current does not work. Someone would have to pull quite > > > the rabbit out of their hat to get softupdates to work in 2.2.x before > > > current. > > > > Not so sure about that . -current has had quite a few VM changes in it. > > I think this is very true; this is pretty much what I was alluding > to with my question. I think -stable would be an easy port, if > someone were familiar with the OpenBSD code and wanted to take a > stab at it. > > Most of the work is in the interaction with the VM system. > > 2.2.x would not be a picnic; some of the assumptions already being > corrected for in the -current port are based on a unified VM and > buffer cache model, which is present is -stable, as well. But it's > cwertainly not outside the realm of possibility for an undergraduate > student who has half a year of independent study to do something with, > and no idea what to tackle. Hm... does anyone have a sense of what the lifetime of 2.2.x is? I'm just thinking if it took someone half a year, and 2.2.x would be dead in 9 months (e.g.), then it wouldn't really be that worthwhile. -- Steve Farrell To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87af9z2z39.fsf>