Re: FreeBSD 5.3 setup help

[Chris Vetter]

> Hmm, well let me think... GNUstep is a volunteer project, so in general..
> ... maybe when someone offers a patch which implements an alternative 
> which is more portable without breaking the ones that work and that is 
> remotely maintainable?  ;-)

The question would be what might be so important that it has to be
looked up in /proc and whether there actually IS another way to
retrieve the information in a more 'standard' way.

> But in this particular case I thought we already have quite a bit if 
> machinery in place in config/procfs.m4 and config/procfs-exe-link.m4
> with HAVE_KVM_ENV and HAVE_PROCFS code in NSProcessInfo in particular 
> for FreeBSD.  So which dependency specifically are you referring too? 
> Could you give us a pointer to the bug report, please?

My point is that, eg on Solaris and BSD, /proc (if it does exist)
contains process information -- nothing else. As compared to Linux,
that also stores information about the CPU, cmdline, interrupts,
devices and *gasp* even the OS version (as given by uname(1)).

In other words, if you program on Linux and solely rely on /proc to
get info about the CPU, your program WILL fail on Solaris or any
other UNIX.

Aside from the fact, that NO system will guarantee that the info
stored in /proc will be textual, as it may also be in binary...

Sorry for bitching, but to me, using /proc is evil_TM.
Yes, it may be convenient.
Yes, it may be the quicker way.
But it's everything but portable.

-- 
Chris

-- 
GMX im TV ... Die Gedanken sind frei ... Schon gesehen?
Jetzt Spot online ansehen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/tv-spot