Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:07:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Cordula's Web <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: rwatson@freebsd.org Cc: alex@hightemplar.com Subject: Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history Message-ID: <20040627080705.1CE964AC84@fw.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040626181922.58671F-100000@fledge.watson.org> (message from Robert Watson on Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:31:20 -0400 (EDT)) References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040626181922.58671F-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > The kernel's internal interfaces change; security bugs are discovered. > > > Someone has to keep the code up to date, and the people who end up doing > > > the work are *not* the people who advocate keeping the code around. > > > I don't really have a strong opinion on the removal of this code, since I > don't use it or know anyone uses it, but I will say I agree with Tim's > general observation that there are substantial volumes of code in the > FreeBSD kernel that do impact our ability to introduce other new features, > adapt to new platforms, perform performance optimization, etc. Any > individual bit of such code can be maintained incrementally at low cost > (and for us, cost means specifically volunteer developer time), but that > as a whole, it does have a "weighing down" effect. [snip] I do use Maple V/Solaris x86 (but under CURRENT only in text mode) with the svr4 emulation. It was not really easy to find all libs and fiddle with the loader, but it works, at least on my copy. However, if the mere presence of svr4 in the 5.x kernel slows other important development down, then it is a good and valid reason to axe it. I have other ways to run this and no more objections. Thanks for clarifying the reasons behind this decision. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040627080705.1CE964AC84>