[quagga-dev 10299] Re: FreeBSD 4.11 support -- patches included

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Sun Mar 3 18:26:37 GMT 2013


"Jim Carroll" <jim at carroll.com> writes:

> Hi Greg,
>
>> I don't understand how gimp gets dragged in (NetBSD 6 has gcc 4.5.3 and
>> no gimp in the base system),
>
> I was as surprised as anyone -- but just so you're not thinking I am
> "completely" nuts, here's the output from ./configure during build of GCC
> 4.7.2
>
> 	checking for the correct version of gmp.h... no
> 	configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.3.1+ and
> MPC 0.8.0+.
> 	Try the --with-gmp, --with-mpfr and/or --with-mpc options to specify
> 	their locations.  Source code for these libraries can be found at
> 	their respective hosting sites as well as at
>
> Maybe I should try 4.5.3.

Ah, GMP, which is far less of a big deal that GIMP :-)  But I agree that
there's a large dependency footprint.

> $ gcc --version
> 2.95.4

NetBSD 5 has gcc 4.1.3.  NetBSD 4 has 4.1.2.  Both have cherrypicked
changes, to make them work on multiple CPUs, but presumably you are on
i386.  Those probably have quite a bit fewer prereqs.

But, you will probably find that the system header files are not C99
compliant either.

>> I can see why you (assuming you is "carroll.com") are making the
>> choices
>> you do.  It comes down to the question of how much an open source
>> official repo should accomodate things that are very old, in terms of
>> the cost/benefit to the overall community.  Thinking about changes to
>> put back pre-C99 compatibility takes time, and the presence of ifdefs
>> causees cognitive load for anyone reading the code.
>
> These are of course excellent points. I'm not sure I can offer an unbiased
> answer. The quagga system is used and depended upon but a large (and
> growing) universe of network admins, and I can understand if you find it
> necessary to draw a line in the sand.
>
> I can only offer a small argument for the support of 4.x. FreeBSD trees 5 &
> 6 were not well received. There was a lot of work going on to introduce SMP,
> and this created a fair amount of instability -- more than FreeBSD admins
> were used to experiencing, which left a lot of admins choosing to skip these
> trees and stay with 4. Some people felt the typical FreeBSD "rock-solidness"
> didn't come back until 7.x (released in 2011).

I realize there was a lot of angst about FreeBSD 5.  I didn't realize,
though, that there was a widespread view that it didn't recover until
2011.  (I used to run FreeBSD, and switched to NetBSD quite a bit before
the FBSD 4->5 transition.  NetBSD 4 had better SMP/thread support, with
associated growing pains.)

> I can only offer one other argument to support 4.x. From INSTALL.quagga.tx
>
>   [snip]
>
> Of course this argument can easily be defeated with a simple patch to the
> txt file <grin>

I already did that.  Not to be nasty, but because that text was very out
of date with modern reality, and once I became aware of how long it's
been since I took care of it, I felt I should fix it promptly so that
people were not mislead.

> If you'd like me to revise the patches & resubmit, just let me know. As it
> stands, we have our patches, and a clear understanding of where future
> upgrades might give us compilation issues. I recognize you cannot (and
> frankly should not) have to keep supporting pre C99 compilers. I just didn't
> know if there was some way to keep the two worlds living together in peace.

Certainly you're weclome to maintain patches privately, and it would be
nice if you published a git repo (with a fbsd4 support branch off a
release?).  But we'll see if others speak up - I suspect you are the
lone FreeBSD4 holdout by now, and perhaps the only active user in a
pre-C99 environment.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/attachments/20130303/eb2259a7/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list