Re: trpt(8) to be decomissioned

  Chris,

On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 10:35:17AM -0700, Chris wrote:
C> > the reason I want to retire it is not that it consumes 40 Kb
C> > in the repository.  The reason is that knows kernel structures,
C> > and fails to compile after changes to them.  So the tool that
C> > nobody uses requires special care when working on TCP.  The
C> > kernel headers disclose the structures for trpt (with some
C> > protection with _WANT_TCPCB, though) and some software from
C> > ports (not calling names!) would start use them too. Now a
C> > kernel developer needs to care not only about trpt, but
C> > about this software, too.
C> > 
C> > On the kernel side there is also TCPDEBUG code that needs
C> > to be kept compilable, while apparently nobody uses it.
C> While I really hate hearing that small utils
C> (almost elegant in their simplicity) that have worked perfectly
C> well for a great many years must be kicked to the curb. I guess
C> I can see your point. However I think TCPDEBUG affects a great
C> deal more that trpt(8). I hope your not implying that it should
C> go as well.

I'd like to hear use scenarios of TCPDEBUG without trpt. What does
it provide that other logging facilities (BB, DTrace) doesn't?

-- 
Gleb Smirnoff