tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Increasing FreeBSD compatibility in mtree



On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:22:40PM -0500, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Brooks Davis wrote:
> 
> > I am planning to import NetBSD's mtree into FreeBSD largely for the -C
> > and -N.  I plan to follow up with an import of install and integration
> > into our installworld process.
> 
> Sounds great.  For what it is worth, we have been discussing ideas to 
> better provide individual software (tools, libraries) as separate source 
> packages (to make it easier for non-NetBSD developers/users to use 
> NetBSD code). mtree was part of that list.
> 
> > To make that practical I need to keep the new mtree as compatible at
> > the script and output level as possible, especially since I've had a
> > request to merge the new version to current release branches.  I've
> > implemented all the missing features and made some FreeBSD specific
> > default changes.  I am hoping the NetBSD community will consider
> > accepting many or most of them to increase commonality and decrease
> > maintenance work.
> > 
> > I've posted a set of 13 patches from 19 commits to my FreeBSD web space:
> > 
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~brooks/patches/nmtree/
> 
> Very nice that you provided them individually.  Having some FreeBSD 
> specific code I think is fine, as I can understand it would be difficult 
> to change existing specifications that some depend on for security.
> 
> I think if there are no complaints in next week I can start testing and 
> then applying these individually for you.

I've updated a couple of the patches.

00-basic-build-r240706.diff no longer includes the __dead/__dead2 change
since I've got a better solution.

08-xname-and-xid-r240785-r240934.diff now initializes the name variable
because gcc 4.2's uninitialized variable detection code isn't quite smart
enough.

Are there any patches where you'd specifically like me to take another
approach or are we more or less good to go?

Thanks,
Brooks

Attachment: pgpclnethNiZh.pgp
Description: PGP signature



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index