From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 3 17:04:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA28109 for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 17:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28102 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 17:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from msmith@localhost) by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) id JAA16044; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:34:05 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199708040004.JAA16044@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) In-Reply-To: from Tom at "Aug 3, 97 11:44:17 am" To: tom@uniserve.com (Tom) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:34:05 +0930 (CST) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Tom stands accused of saying: > > On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, David Holloway wrote: > > > how different do ports-current and ports-stable have to be? > > (unless 2.x and 3.x are completely non portable > > between each other, in which case.. that is a mistake) > > Exactly. Current developers need to agree to not break compatibility, > and the problem is solved. Some ports (very few), that need access to > various kernel may need to broken, but the number of such should be small. Whacko. While we're at it, let's just rename this list "msdos-current". -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[