Re: [RFC] what do we do with picobsd ?

["M. Warner Losh" <imp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In message: <20060131105224.A57698@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
            Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@xxxxxxxx> writes:
: [i am cc-ing -small because they are interested, but please
: keep the discussion on -current]
: 
: as the subject says...
: 
: The picobsd script in the tree at the moment is broken in
: several ways. It may work on 4.x, but not on newer releases.
: 
: I have a fixed version (mostly the one i attached yesterday, with
: a minor fix to handle the newer boot blocks) that works also
: up to -current. Besides, it relies on ports/sysutils/makefs to build
: the filesystem image so it can run without superuser privs.
: 
: I know it is not ideal to have a piece of code in the main tree
: that depends on an external port. Yet, better than have it broken.
: 
: Now the options are:
: 
: 1. do nothing and leave things broken;
: 
: 2. commit the updated script, fix one or two sample targets,
:    and remove the others (all of this is in src/release/picobsd)
: 
: 3. remove the entire src/release/picobsd tree and move it to
:    a port (question - do we want the old content of src/release/picobsd
:    in ports/foo/picobsd/files ? In any case, we need a place in
:    some repository to store these things)
: 
: Option #3 is probably the best one, except that the exact 'config'
: files are strongly tied to the target source tree you are using,
: at least for major releases (libraries differ, application name
: change, etc) and so I'd need to modify the script to reach the
: templates for RELENG_7, RELENG_6... if they are not already in the
: target source tree.  Also, this requires a repocopy.
: 
: However given that i don't have a lot of time at the moment,
: i would compromise on option #2 for the time being, and move
: to option #3 at a later (but unspecified) time.
: 
: comments ?

Given how intertwingled picobsd is to the underly OS, I think you are
going to have a hard time getting to #3.  #2 is fine with me.

Warner