Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:44:02 GMT From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> To: terry@lambert.org, wollman@lcs.mit.edu Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anybody using netns? Message-ID: <199602122144.VAA01724@tees>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-current@freefall.freebsd.org Mon Feb 12 21:36:37 1996
> Original-Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by
freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA24372
Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:10:26 -0800 (PST)
> PP-warning: Illegal Received field on preceding line
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:10:12 -0500
> From: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: Re: Anybody using netns?
>
> <<On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:51:03 -0700 (MST), Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
said:
>
> >> Because they bloat the source tree with useless code?
With the changed policy on cvs distribution I don't see any reason to ship
things in /usr/src unless they're actually working and in use. People are
always free to get the cvs tree and use those portions of code for
development and if anyone ever does, it can be pulled back out of cvs into
/usr/src.
Things have changed in this area and I agree with Garrett's intention of
cleaning up /usr/src since it's now more of a modular decision to make.
If you want everything then grab cvs, if you just want enough to build
working code then you have the option of just getting /usr/src.
It makes no difference to me since I get cvs anyway but there are lots of
people out there with small disks who'd like to play with the mainstream
sources and getting them as small as possible is a good thing. No-one loses
by this at all since the code isn't being made unavailable in the sense that
it used to be.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602122144.VAA01724>