[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: DLA at MIT-AI
- Subject: Various flames
- From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC>
- Date: Sun ,10 Jan 82 21:56:00 EDT
- Cc: RMS at MIT-AI, BUG-LISPM at MIT-AI
- In-reply-to: The message of 10 Jan 82 15:30-EST from David L. Andre <DLA at MIT-AI>
Date: 10 January 1982 15:30-EST
From: David L. Andre <DLA at MIT-AI>
Subject: Various flames
To: RWK at SCRC-TENEX
cc: RMS at MIT-AI, DLA at MIT-AI, BUG-LISPM at MIT-AI
Date: Sunday, 10 January 1982, 04:23-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX>
Date: 6 January 1982 00:43-EST
From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-AI>
Perhaps it only works in MIT systems. I don't know the right way to
conditionalize a patch that is for SYSTEM at MIT, only.
Perhaps there should be an MIT patchable system, for all MIT specific
stuff. Certainly anything which is MIT only doesn't belong in SYSTEM.
The solution which has been used is that patchable subsystems may be
loaded anywhere. Any patches which affect the subsystem should be
loaded there, and not in System. This allows a large number of systems
to be maintained separately and without conflict.
I also don't think that you can define a "standard MIT system"; there's
too many special interest groups. The standard system should be
"System", and anything else loaded in as needed.
Right, the problem here is that this patch WASN'T to the standard
system, but to a system belonging to a special interest group, namely
users of RMS's file system. MIT is a special interest group, though,
in its own right. For example, patches relating to the MIT CHAOSnet
topology belong in an MIT system. I guess the right place for RMS's
patch would be an RMSFS system.