In message <email@example.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
>: >If you
>: >want to increse the already insane level of pain to upgrade to 5.0,
>: >then go ahead and break them.
>: You know, we may actually _decrease_ the insanity level a lot by
>: requiring a reinstall.
>That level of pain is going to be ugly.
Could be, but it might still be the lesser level of pain.
People seem to have no problem reinstalling Linux four to six times
a year, so I wonder why reinstalling to get the first major "New
Technology" release of FreeBSD should be that much harder for them.
The amount of weird inconsistent systems we get by insisting that
people install from scratch for 5.0-R would be epsilon, compared to
if we just overwrite whatever they have there now.
>I think that's a bad interaction.
Could be. I just told the worst bike-shedder in private email that
he is not going to get any further from me on this topic. Enough
>: The justification was given in ample amount 4+ years ago, but here
>: are the high-lights again:
>: 1: It confuses users. The reason why you don't hear much about
>: this now is that for four years we have installed systems
>: with consistent names by default.
>In your opinion.
Ask Jordan, he was the one with his finger on WC's help-line.
He was quite insistent about this.
>Right now we have a huge backward compatibility problem, which
The only people who have the compat names have all put them there
themselves, and they will be perfectly able to fix it trivially
when the read the releasenote for 5.0.
I belive this is more a matter of "want to" than "able to".
You can also add magic to the loader if you like, to stick in
some s%d if it isn't there. Then early in /etc/rc you can
run a script to put symlinks in /dev if you feel like.
I don't feel like it.
I have already volunteered to get libdisk and sysinstall to do
sparc64 and possibly UFS2, I'm not taking more on my plate.
And seriously, adding more magic is not the way we should be
headed, but if you belive it gets simpler by adding more obscure
code, be my guest.
>sane. The current failure modes aren't acceptible. Ideally, you'd
>retain the compat slice names for another major release, but failing
>that ideal, the onus is on you to ensure graceful failure.
We have retained them for far more releases than we should. There
is no way I can provide compat names in GEOM without totally fucking
over the layering, just like it was in the old disk code. Fucking
over the layering is much harder to implement when the locking is
correct, and therefore I won't even think about it.
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message