[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Requesting for review of the Draft proposal for - procfs

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: Requesting for review of the Draft proposal for - procfs
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:27:17 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)


On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:50:41PM +0530, Madhusudan C.S wrote:

> IpPI is nothing but a refinement of libnetfs or more clearly procfs
> specific libnetfs, in your terms libprocfs. This is done for two
> reasons,
> 1.  To make the design robust, I dont want the effort who ever puts to
> go waste at any point in time. After procfs implementation is nearly
> done(I dont mean it will be over once for all, I only mean that once
> procfs has the required functionalities that is intended till now. I
> do understand that Free Software Developement is a never ending
> process of software development, improvement and community bonding and
> interaction and I also assure that I will continue my association with
> Hurd for ever, even after GSoC since I simply love GNU and
> Microkernels), and Hurd has a new library which is better than
> libnetfs for some reasons, one should be in a position to only change
> the Interface which uses these libraries and not the whole procfs
> implementation(very similar to what happened before OSI reference
> model came into picture, now with OSI or more practical TCP/IP one
> needs to change only the layer which must be changed and its interface
> with the layers above and below).
> 2.  The reason you said, it should make the users' life easy to add
> new features to procfs.

I don't quite see what this libprocfs would offer over the normal
libnetfs; why we need a special library for that... I don't see procfs
having any special requirements compared to other virtual filesystems.

Maybe the problem is that you do not have enough understanding yet about
what libnetfs does... (Don't let yourself be mislead by the misnaming!)

> Thanks a lot, but I need to submit a proposal to Google which is less
> than 7500 characters. And I want the less than 7500 characters
> proposal to be in complete in its own sense, and mentors need to see
> the external link only for additional details, Am I right in this way?
> Please suggest me.

Well, that's pretty much what the FAQ suggests. (
http://code.google.com/opensource/gsoc/2008/faqs.html#0.1_student_app )

But don't spend to much effort on it -- I think we can manage to find
the rest of your application :-)

> If you want me to be in IRC, please tell me the time. I will try to
> make myself available at that time.

Well, we don't insist on that; but it could help you -- certain
questions are much easier to discuss on IRC.

I don't have regular online hours in general; but over the past few days
I've always been online in the afternoons/evenings European time, around
14:00-22:00 UTC. That's also about the time you are most likely to meed
other Hurd developers.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much in the middle of the night for you.
That's why we have the question about shifting day/night rythm in the
application form...

Of course, you can also try at other times; but you will need a lot of
patience then :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]