From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Feb 24 11:52: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70BE37B74D for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:51:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29947; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:20:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:20:06 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Jonathon McKitrick Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: stupid question about stable and current :-) Message-ID: <20000224122005.Q21720@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000224120123.K21720@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:46:07PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Jonathon McKitrick [000224 12:15] wrote: > Are there major changes in where config files are located in 4.0? I > was just starting to get the hang of it. Nothing earth shattering, but things like /etc/make.conf now has a FreeBSD default in /etc/defaults/make.conf things like that. :) You should check out mergemaster. > Also, why do all these breakages occur? If most programs are designed > to be modular and/or use pipes, they should be 'black boxes' and the > internals should be irrelevant, correct? Also, if the program is > patched to work under current, does that mean it will *not* work under > stable anymore? Or is it the *kernel* and other system modules that are > patched, rather than the problem program itself? Generally a -current program will have less of a chance of working on an older system, where a older binary should almost always work on a -current system. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message