Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:58:22 -0700 From: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: "Georg-W. Koltermann" <Georg.Koltermann@mscsoftware.com>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG, Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD OS version for HotSpot (was: 1.3.1 patchset 7 not quite ready) Message-ID: <20020710235822.GA3402@gnuppy.monkey.org> In-Reply-To: <15660.50999.28887.442198@emerger.yogotech.com> References: <59063B5B4D98D311BC0D0001FA7E452205FDA83A@l04.research.kpn.com> <20020710102904.GA3882@gnuppy.monkey.org> <1026333648.676.22.camel@hunter.muc.macsch.com> <20020710232517.GB2394@gnuppy.monkey.org> <15660.50045.80305.351508@emerger.yogotech.com> <20020710234416.GD2394@gnuppy.monkey.org> <15660.50999.28887.442198@emerger.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:45:59PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote: > I believe Dan is going to do this, but until that happens, why not just > leave the -stable support in place? It certainly isn't hurting > anything. There's another subtle bug in -stable that isn't worth it for me to track it down, which just gives me more reason to abandon -stable since it won't run correctly on it anyways even with my hacks. It directly includes a private pthreads header... I'd like to keep things clean by removing a lot of the sloppiness in the current tree. What I commited was a snapshot of my development tree and was in no way designed for general consumption and I don't expect folks to clean up after me. If there's a compelling reason for me to keep -stable, then I'm open to suggestions such as large body of folks that can only run -stable because they have only 1 machine, etc... bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020710235822.GA3402>