Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:34:05 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: tom@uniserve.com (Tom) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) Message-ID: <199708040004.JAA16044@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970803113829.3843C-100000@shell.uniserve.com> from Tom at "Aug 3, 97 11:44:17 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708040004.JAA16044>