Coda File System

Re: pkgsrc patches

From: Jan Harkes <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:57:59 -0500
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:39:32PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Greg Troxel <> writes:
> On 20011-03-11, I sent a patch to adapt coda to modern NetBSD.  On
> 6.9.5, this patch is still in pkgsrc.  Is there some problem with
> applying it?  (The patch file has a new name, but it's the same bits.)
> (Also, is there anybody here?)

Yes someone is here.

Haven't checked yet if the patch is applied to CVS, but I have a couple
of emails with Coda related patches that were sent to codalist and me
privately tagged to be applied.

I figured I'd apply them after the CVS -> Git conversion was complete
and then release a new Coda version with the state of things. I've
scripted the whole conversion process with reposurgeon and stopped
trying to 'perfect' the conversion mostly because I seemed to be getting
stuck on reposurgeon related bugs.

The only remaining step is to validate that the source of the released
versions of Coda actually match the tagged commits. I tried to automate
the check, but due to subtle differences because of CVS/RCS tag
expansions and such it looks like it might have to be done manually by
unpacking a released tar and then diffing against a checked out release
and reading the diffs to see if any of the differences are significant.

> +#if defined(__NetBSD__) && __NetBSD_Version__ >= 499002400   /* 4.99.24 */
> +	if (error < 0)
> +	    error = mount("coda", venusRoot, 0, (void *)kernDevice, 256);
> +	if (error < 0)
> +	    error = mount("cfs", venusRoot, 0, (void *)kernDevice, 256);
> +#else

I don't like the inline #ifdef style, but I can see that any other
solution would just push the ifdef into a worse place. btw. what does
the 256 stand for? shouldn't it include a header and use the symbolic

Received on 2015-01-27 15:58:36