tech-toolchain archive

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

Re: Sets, subsets, syspkgs, and MK*



At Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:53:09 +0700, Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> 
wrote:
Subject: Re: Sets, subsets, syspkgs, and MK*
> 
>     Date:        Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:42:09 +0900
>     From:        Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%tombi.co.jp@localhost>
>     Message-ID:  <20091216154209.GE19136%x300.tombi.co.jp@localhost>
> 
>   | I think YP is worth being a module, because it's context is limited 
> compared
>   | to printf(3), malloc(3), ...
> 
> Unlike printf(), malloc() etc, I think YP is worth being trashed.
> Its usefulness is zero, which really is limited.  But never mind...

Indeed.  I turned off USE_YP and MKYP after I turned off my last running
SunOS-4 machine many years ago, and I have not looked back.  (and if I
turned them on again I'd have to dig out my 1.3 patches that fixed many
of the problems with them in their NetBSD implementation!)

I turn off the related KERBEROS flags, INET6 (still), PAM, etc. as well
because none of those things are of any use to me either, and I'm just
as happy to not have the unused code cluttering my systems.

Perhaps it would be OK for there to be a "YP" syspkg, or a "KERBEROS"
syspkg, etc., but I don't think it would _really_ be worth the effort to
produce them, even if they were simply done with the source tree as-is
by finding the set of changed files produced after having turned on the
option on top of a build where it had first been done without being
enabled (e.g. using the same "build -Uu" and METALOG trick I described
for producing binary patches).

Some "features" are just too pervasive to be considered as modular
options.  YP and KERBEROS in particular are good examples, and they are
also not the kinds of features one might think to install at a later
date -- you either need them in your environment, or you do not.  Adding
them to your environment is a big enough upheaval that a full re-install
of systems that started without them is not overkill.

INET6 is probably in the same category too.

-- 
                                                Greg A. Woods
                                                Planix, Inc.

<woods%planix.com@localhost>       +1 416 218 0099        http://www.planix.com/

Attachment: pgpBAomPg6jyZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index