Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 04:34:23 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Cc: taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SATAN ported?? Message-ID: <199504061134.EAA23918@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199504060748.AAA02964@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> (rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian Tao: * > The list of changes and bugfixes from 5.000 to 5.001 is 1300 lines * > long. ;-) I suspect there will be a similar number of changes from * > 5.001 to 5.002. I think we should probably hold off on a port of perl * > until at least 5.002. I can put together a perl5001 package in the * > meantime, if anyone is interested. I'm not sure if I follow your logic here. Just because a piece of software is unstable doesn't mean we can't make good use of it. Considering the number of people having trouble compiling it, I don't see why we shouldn't make a port. (Also, some people desperately need/want to run Satan by themselves before their system is broken in....) Yes, a binary package is fine but won't really help people who want to take a look and fix the bugs. Also, given the nature of people's reports, it seems like it is quite a work to make it compile/work on all different versions of FreeBSD-2.x (2.0R, 0210, 0322, -current, with or w/o gcc 2.6.3), so we need to coordinate our efforts. If you are worried about newbies, we can put a big WARNING!!! sign in front of it so that unsuspecting users won't stumble on it. :) Rod Grimes: * You should probably find and fix as many of the problems as you can * with 5.001 and get them sent back to Larry so that 5.002 will not * have these problems. * * If we don't try to get patches back to authors the next version can * even be harder to get working :-(. Agreed. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504061134.EAA23918>