From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <9ab217670704120908s1407c1d1xbed0dcc2144b1ce7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:08:17 -0400 From: "Devon H. O'Dell" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: [sources] 20070410: % cat >/sys/lib/dist/changes/1176262206.1.txt << EOF In-Reply-To: <5d375e920704120856i3501d43aw6412b2b1ca0b48e3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5247962e2f1f11c9b374c57d9a9a71db@cat-v.org> <5d375e920704120814x7df5749sd7b8524972878a85@mail.gmail.com> <9ab217670704120832k37d6e734u7d2b7edd9a6e4be0@mail.gmail.com> <5d375e920704120856i3501d43aw6412b2b1ca0b48e3@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 458d48f0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2007/4/12, Uriel : > On 4/12/07, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: [snip] > > One thing I'm not sure of still is, if there is a cpurc.local, it may > > want to implement some things dependent on e.g. what if you are > > starting some client script that requires the network to already have > > been initialized. This seems to be what you would end up putting in > > your /cfg/$sysname/cpustart, > > We might want a /rc/bin/cpustart.local too? No, it appears to serve the same purpose as cpurc.local -- cpu-specific startup, after initialization. (And it's not in the default distribution). At what point do we stop and at what point do we create cpustart.local.local.local? > > We need to have something automatically create /cfg for peoples > > fossils when they upgrade then. You can't just mkdir /cfg. > > Having /cfg by default might be a good idea, but I don't think it is a > big deal as long as it is optional, I suspect most small networks can > get by with cpurc.local and maybe a cpustart.local, and if you want > /cfg, you can just create it and cpurc should take advantage of it > automatically. If we don't put /cfg in, I agree that cpustart.local is a good idea. > > I could. How is your script splitting them up though? I was assuming > > that it used those lines to split each change. > > For some unknown reason russ refused to have the changes split on his > end, which would be the ideal. I have a script that splits the daily Because it's a pain in the ass to go through all the changes individually. > changes file and puts them in sources, see for example: > /n/sources/contrib/uriel/changes/2007/0410/ > and then use that as input for the email notifications. > > If someone wants to get a single email per day, they can get a digest > of plan9changes. > > To split I use some awk magic to detect text that is not indented, > which is the comments that go over the diffs. See the end of > /n/sources/contrib/uriel/plog for the (awful and fragile) details. Ok. I'll start adding subjects then. But do please note, I'm not intending to split them up past daily changelogs right now. Yes, the makemail script does create separate changes, but editing them all separately, figuring out what to name them, etc, would increase the effort needed to do these things by a power of at least n*2. --dho