Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:51:42 +1000 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history Message-ID: <20040630035142.GA28627@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <40E1AB5B.1090302@freebsd.org> References: <34706.1088497708@critter.freebsd.dk> <46A7D8A4-C9EF-11D8-99F8-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <40E1AB5B.1090302@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:48:11PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Charles Swiger wrote: > >On Jun 29, 2004, at 4:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >>In message <40DF2607.5020409@mac.com>, Chuck Swiger writes: > >> > >>>In other words, I care quite a bit about how "working, supported > >>>functionality" gets transitioned to "no longer available". I'm not > >>>happy with > >>>the notion of "supported" -> "HEADS UP" -> one week -> gone. > >> > >> > >>I don't think anybody would be happy with that, and that is not what > >>was proposed in this case. > > > > > >OK. While I thought your original "HEADS UP" was clear, perhaps you had > >a less abrupt transition plan in mind. > > > >If you suggested that the ibcs/svr4 compatibility stuff should be marked > >depreciated for 5.3, and give people until 5.4 time find someone willing > >to do maintenance for the code, or give someone time to move this > >functionality to ports, or find some other alternative, that might > >receive more positive feedback. > > From what I have understood so far is that ibcs/svr4 already *is* broken > in 5-CURRENT. However it does seem to work sufficiently well in 4-STABLE. As far as I'm aware, svr4 and ibcs2 emulation work as well on -current as they ever did on RELENG_4. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040630035142.GA28627>