RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 4:20 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Guido Flohr; MiNT mailing list
> Subject: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
>
>
>
> > > This may be off topic, but keeping in mind the recent
> implementation of
> > > SLBs (which formally behave like stopped processes), I would
> think about
> > > either a /proc extension (to make possible to differentiate
> an SLB from a
> > > real process after SIGSTOP) or /lib folder, though I don't
> quite like the
> >
> > Are we talking about the file attributes which currently encode the run
> > state? Why not just invent a new one?
>
> That was the intention behind "/proc extension".

OK, so why not just define a new file attribute combination for the SLB
instance, and this is it?

> > > Anyways, after playing a bit with SLBs in MiNT and MagiC 6.0,
> I could say
> > > (and this sounds like a sort of life's irony) that Gryfs
> implementation is
> > > better than the original.
> >
> > Is this already in a public beta of MiNT?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The issue is that the mentioned
> > restriction regarding SLBPATH will probably prevent existing code from
> > running...
>
> Yes.

I think that if we really want that SLBs are written for both MagiC and MiNT
(I do!), then

- there should be a single document describing possible differences between
the different implementations (that's why I wrote a manual page in the first
place), and

- the implementations should be close enough so that the average programmer
actually *will* come up with SLBs working everywhere. The restriction that
was mentioned before (path searching) might be a problem therefore.