Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 15:54:16 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-standards@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong Message-ID: <p05100e10b73ef411bf62@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20010602124907.G31257@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200106020823.f528N5O98998@earth.backplane.com> <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]> <20010602124907.G31257@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:49 PM -0700 6/2/01, David O'Brien wrote: >On Sat, Jun 02, 2001, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > >> I don't have any strong feeling about what is "right" in this >> case, but I do think it would be appropriate to back out the >> change to time_t until the question *is* correctly sorted out. > >I don't see why? We can't even agree there is a problem. And >if dangerous kernel commits can stay in, so can this one. In my opinion, this is different from more-dangerous kernel commits because the kernel-commits only affect the kernel in freebsd-current. This affects the include files used by everything on the system, which means it will affect ports on -current, which means it may effect those same ports on freebsd-stable. Obviously nobody has put me in charge of such decisions. That is just my opinion of why it's different. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05100e10b73ef411bf62>