Re: Let's remove sysutils/lsof
Il 1 dicembre 2016 14:04:30 CET, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas ha scritto: >Jiri B writes: > >>> lsof is a problem. It is tightly coupled to the base system, enough >to >>> require /usr/src/sys checked out to be able to build it. This means >>> that it breaks quite frequently: >> >> Correcting Pascal's mail... >> >> IMO lsof is used because BSD' netstat >> doesn't show PID of a process with open sockets. fstat could be >> used with little filter effort. > >net/arm could indeed be easily patched to use fstat output, sthen@ >proposed an initial patch for this: > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=147445148420200&w=2 > >More code is needed to completely replace the lsof bits. Someone who's >interested in tor / arm could take a look at this. > >However this is unrelated to whether we should keep lsof or not. >Testing shows that currently net/arm works *because* it can't use lsof. lsof has always caused troubles in the past, and it doesn't work well. Imho it's time to kill it. Ciao, David
Re: Let's remove sysutils/lsof
Jiri B writes: >> lsof is a problem. It is tightly coupled to the base system, enough to >> require /usr/src/sys checked out to be able to build it. This means >> that it breaks quite frequently: > > Correcting Pascal's mail... > > IMO lsof is used because BSD' netstat > doesn't show PID of a process with open sockets. fstat could be > used with little filter effort. net/arm could indeed be easily patched to use fstat output, sthen@ proposed an initial patch for this: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=147445148420200&w=2 More code is needed to completely replace the lsof bits. Someone who's interested in tor / arm could take a look at this. However this is unrelated to whether we should keep lsof or not. Testing shows that currently net/arm works *because* it can't use lsof. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
Re: Let's remove sysutils/lsof
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:49:22AM -0500, Jiri B wrote: > > lsof is a problem. It is tightly coupled to the base system, enough to > > require /usr/src/sys checked out to be able to build it. This means > > that it breaks quite frequently: > > Correcting Pascal's mail... LOL, .co != .com :) Stupid me! > IMO lsof is used because BSD' netstat > doesn't show PID of a process with open sockets. fstat could be > used with little filter effort. > > j.
Re: Let's remove sysutils/lsof
> lsof is a problem. It is tightly coupled to the base system, enough to > require /usr/src/sys checked out to be able to build it. This means > that it breaks quite frequently: Correcting Pascal's mail... IMO lsof is used because BSD' netstat doesn't show PID of a process with open sockets. fstat could be used with little filter effort. j.
