From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Sep 26 18:00:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA11434 for stable-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tok.qiv.com (uucp@[204.214.141.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA11417 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by tok.qiv.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with UUCP id UAA09576 for stable@freebsd.org; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:00:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost) by acp.qiv.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA00259 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:59:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: acp.qiv.com: jdn owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:59:00 -0500 (CDT) From: "Jay D. Nelson" To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2nd Notice: 4 days to code freeze in RELENG_2_2 branch. In-Reply-To: <8488.875262955@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Would it be possible to uncomment the HDB capabilities in UUCP for the next release? Even though UUCP died years ago, I'm converting more older Unix systems than ever. Most sites don't need the extra capabilities of Taylor, and if HDB capability came out of the box, it would save those of us who have to do this some headaches. (I know about uuconv -- but that's not the issue. If the client doesn't need Taylor, HDB is simpler to maintain.) I think the increase in binary size is worth the price. Thanks -- Jay