From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 15 12:09:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB0816A4B3; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA6643F3F; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9FJ9pbe000690; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h9FJ9pV4000689; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:51 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Garance A Drosihn Message-ID: <20031015190951.GA638@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <20031013153219.H45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031014103446.U45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031015045429.Q41837@gamplex.bde.org> <20031014225053.GA59096@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031015090422.M57857@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031015074437.GA60338@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031015075111.GA52914@rot13.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: standards@freebsd.org cc: sparc64@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: time_t on sparc64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:09:53 -0000 On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:56:39PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > I agree it would be better if we had 64-bit time_t's for > 5.x-STABLE. I would really really like to see that. However, > we are hoping to make 5.x turn into 5.x-stable with a release > of 5.2 in December. In fact, 5-stable happens no sooner than 5.3 in Feb 2004. Make the switch before 5.2 and you have enough time to deal with ports that suddenly start to break. Since sparc64 is already labeled tier 1, I would suggest we spend the rest of this month (= 2 weeks) getting feedback from the field. If the resistance is small enough, we make the switch early Nov. and use the remaining time to 5.2 as a shake-out period of src. We then use the time between 5.2 and 5.3 to shake out problems in ports. No mistakes: "we" does not include "marcel" :-) -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net