From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Oct 17 02:30:32 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA19406 for stable-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA19398 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by who.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id CAA27598 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA18657; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:28:34 +0300 (EET DST) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:28:26 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD-stable new release Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk =09HI! For all those who do not read -hackers - there is another users vs.=20 developers flamewar, on part of it being the new releases, among others=20 the release of 2.1.6/7 - the number doesn't matter, it is the same=20 thing. Now are there any *sane* ideas as for what *new* things should=20 make it to 2.1.6? Are the new ports that can be brought over to be=20 bgrought over, do we want tcl-7.5 included in the system as there is in=20 -current, do we want some other "upgrades" be present (I personaly use=20 DES code from -current for newer SSLeay port). Any one who responds, please observe: =091) This mail is my *personal* view of the things. It is not=20 =09 sanctioned by anyone, inc. the FreeBSD core group. Even=20 =09 information on the 2.1.6 release is unofficial - I just saw it=20 =09 mentioned in the -hackers mailing list in the mails of some=20 =09 persons.=20 =092) I don't want a flame war and won't answer to any flames. I=20 =09 hope to keep this all in reasonable frame.=20 =093) IMHO I am not much of an organizer :-) and so not too suitable=20 =09 for carrying it all through. As d=B4for contributing I can=20 =09 provide my own time and disk space which is located over a not too=20 =09 good link in a far a way place in Europe. I can also test any=20 =09 reasonable changes.=20 =094) I do not in any way want to make -stable unstable in any way.=20 =09 All changes going in would be tested for stability by several=20 =09 people *before* making it to the official tree. It should be=20 =09 possible to either "group up" several of the deltas to make=20 =09 fewer of them or alternatively, make a lot of them for smaller=20 =09 deltas.=20 =095) Any one who finds this not appropriate for the list, the whole=20 =09 thing pointless, etc. Are welcome to mail me personaly and say so. =09Sander