headers
Robert Watson | 1 Apr 2005 06:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Colin Percival wrote:

>   I'd like to add bsdiff/bspatch into the base system.  I initially
> wrote these as part of FreeBSD Update, but I'm now also using them in
> portsnap, and bspatch has been part of the OS X base system for most of
> the past year as a result of being used by their patches. 

I think this would be a useful addition.  They're very handy, and are nice
"atomic" tools that can be used to build more complex solutions in the
traditional UNIX style. 

Robert N M Watson

_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
M. Warner Losh | 1 Apr 2005 07:56

small change to config

I'd like to make a small change to config, and use that change to
improve the pc98 port.

Right now, the machine line in config looks like:

	machine pc98

This causes compile/FOO/machine to be linked to pc98/include.  We have
similar logic for modules.

NetBSD's machine line, on some architecutres, has two arguments, which
correspond to $MACHINE and $MACHINE_ARCH respectively.  I'd like to
pull this concept into FreeBSD.  The only machine that this impacts is
pc98.  pc98 config files would change to:

	machine pc98 i386

config creates the machine link, as now.  In addition, a link is made
from i386 to sys/i386/include.  This allows the majority of the .h
files that are shared amoung ports that have the same CPU to live in
one place, and the machine/foo.h files with minor tweaks.

I'd like to move to this model on FreeBSD, and use it to reduce the
number of #ifdef PC98 in the tree, while allowing a cleaner separation
of pc98 from i386.  This should reduce the maintanence impact of
having pc98 in the tree, as well as being cleaner.

This idea can be extended for whole families of CPUs.  So in theory we
could also add an x86 directory as well, and share that among i386,
amd64 and pc98.  However, that's beyond the scope of the work that I'm
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mario Hoerich | 1 Apr 2005 15:43
Picon

Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system

# Robert Watson:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Colin Percival wrote:
> >   I'd like to add bsdiff/bspatch into the base system.
[...]
> I think this would be a useful addition. 
[...]

Not that it's important, but the names probably aren't
the best possible choice, as 'bsdiff' seems to suggest 
'BSD licensed diff'. (See bsdtar.) 

Then again, maybe it's just me.

Regards,
Mario
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Dan Nelson | 1 Apr 2005 17:28
Gravatar

Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system

In the last episode (Apr 01), Mario Hoerich said:
> # Robert Watson:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Colin Percival wrote:
> > >   I'd like to add bsdiff/bspatch into the base system.
> [...]
> > I think this would be a useful addition. 
> [...]
> 
> Not that it's important, but the names probably aren't the best
> possible choice, as 'bsdiff' seems to suggest 'BSD licensed diff'.
> (See bsdtar.)

Yes, that's what I assumed this thread was about for the first couple
posts.  bdiff/bpatch sound like better names.  What's the s stand for?

--

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson <at> allantgroup.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Garance A Drosihn | 1 Apr 2005 22:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system

At 9:28 AM -0600 4/1/05, Dan Nelson wrote:
>In the last episode (Apr 01), Mario Hoerich said:
>>  # Robert Watson:
>>  > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Colin Percival wrote:
>>  > >   I'd like to add bsdiff/bspatch into the base system.
>>  [...]
>>  > I think this would be a useful addition.
>>  [...]
>>
>>  Not that it's important, but the names probably aren't the best
>>  possible choice, as 'bsdiff' seems to suggest 'BSD licensed diff'.
>>  (See bsdtar.)
>
>Yes, that's what I assumed this thread was about for the first
>couple posts.  bdiff/bpatch sound like better names.  What's the
>'s' stand for?

I was also confused by the names at first.  How about just
'bindiff' and 'binpatch'?  These do sound like useful utilities
to add, now that I understand what they are...

--

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad <at> gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad <at> freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih <at> rpi.edu
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
John Baldwin | 1 Apr 2005 20:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: small change to config

On Friday 01 April 2005 12:56 am, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I'd like to make a small change to config, and use that change to
> improve the pc98 port.
>
> Right now, the machine line in config looks like:
>
> 	machine pc98
>
> This causes compile/FOO/machine to be linked to pc98/include.  We have
> similar logic for modules.
>
> NetBSD's machine line, on some architecutres, has two arguments, which
> correspond to $MACHINE and $MACHINE_ARCH respectively.  I'd like to
> pull this concept into FreeBSD.  The only machine that this impacts is
> pc98.  pc98 config files would change to:
>
> 	machine pc98 i386
>
> config creates the machine link, as now.  In addition, a link is made
> from i386 to sys/i386/include.  This allows the majority of the .h
> files that are shared amoung ports that have the same CPU to live in
> one place, and the machine/foo.h files with minor tweaks.
>
> I'd like to move to this model on FreeBSD, and use it to reduce the
> number of #ifdef PC98 in the tree, while allowing a cleaner separation
> of pc98 from i386.  This should reduce the maintanence impact of
> having pc98 in the tree, as well as being cleaner.

Sounds ok to me.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alex Burke | 1 Apr 2005 23:19
Picon

Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system

Hi,

At first I was also confused by the names...I agree with Garance, I
think bindiff and binpatch are much better more descriptive names.

Just my humble two cents, Alex Burke.

Garance wrote:
> I was also confused by the names at first.  How about just
> 'bindiff' and 'binpatch'?  These do sound like useful utilities
> to add, now that I understand what they are...
> 
> --
> Garance Alistair Drosehn
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Colin Percival | 2 Apr 2005 00:12
Picon
Picon

Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system

>> In the last episode (Apr 01), Mario Hoerich said:
>>>  Not that it's important, but the names probably aren't the best
>>>  possible choice, as 'bsdiff' seems to suggest 'BSD licensed diff'.

No, it would be "BSD licensed iff". :-)

> At 9:28 AM -0600 4/1/05, Dan Nelson wrote:
>> Yes, that's what I assumed this thread was about for the first
>> couple posts.  bdiff/bpatch sound like better names.  What's the
>> 's' stand for?

Err... nothing.  Or rather, I'm not sure what it stands for.  I was
looking for a name for a diff tool which worked on "binary software" (or
more generally, files with lots of "byte-substitutions"), and which uses
"bytewise subtraction" as part of its encoding process... (I'm sure you
can think of other possible meanings of "bs", as well.)

Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I was also confused by the names at first.  How about just
> 'bindiff' and 'binpatch'?  These do sound like useful utilities
> to add, now that I understand what they are...

When I first wrote this code, I called it "bdiff".  Soon thereafter, it
was pointed out to me that there was a bit of a namespace collision -- the
name "bdiff" -- and the name "bindiff", which was my second choice -- had
each been used for several different (not very good) binary diff tools
already.

So I looked for a name which hadn't already been used by several other
people, and settled on "bsdiff" / "bspatch" as a compromise between being
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Bruce M Simpson | 2 Apr 2005 00:15

Re: small change to config

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:56:33PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I'd like to make a small change to config, and use that change to
> improve the pc98 port.

I like this idea.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Max Laier | 2 Apr 2005 01:26

Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system

On Saturday 02 April 2005 00:12, Colin Percival wrote:
> >> In the last episode (Apr 01), Mario Hoerich said:
> >>>  Not that it's important, but the names probably aren't the best
> >>>  possible choice, as 'bsdiff' seems to suggest 'BSD licensed diff'.
>
> No, it would be "BSD licensed iff". :-)
>
> > At 9:28 AM -0600 4/1/05, Dan Nelson wrote:
> >> Yes, that's what I assumed this thread was about for the first
> >> couple posts.  bdiff/bpatch sound like better names.  What's the
> >> 's' stand for?
>
> Err... nothing.  Or rather, I'm not sure what it stands for.  I was
> looking for a name for a diff tool which worked on "binary software" (or
> more generally, files with lots of "byte-substitutions"), and which uses
> "bytewise subtraction" as part of its encoding process... (I'm sure you
> can think of other possible meanings of "bs", as well.)

Though it's "*B*inary *S*mall diff" ... and I like that name!

> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> > I was also confused by the names at first.  How about just
> > 'bindiff' and 'binpatch'?  These do sound like useful utilities
> > to add, now that I understand what they are...
>
> When I first wrote this code, I called it "bdiff".  Soon thereafter, it
> was pointed out to me that there was a bit of a namespace collision -- the
> name "bdiff" -- and the name "bindiff", which was my second choice -- had
> each been used for several different (not very good) binary diff tools
> already.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane