Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 13:59:54 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD Message-ID: <9502272059.AA03315@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199502272043.NAA07000@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Feb 27, 95 01:43:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> No one is a perfect programmer, and subtle bugs may crop up soon after a > change is made to a library routine that in unanticipated (or at a > unspecified later date). W/out the reasoning for the change and a > detailed description of what the change was, we are *relying* on the > NetBSD folks to fix 'bugs' in their software. Relying on someone who at > times you have an antagonistic relationship with and who has no reason > to fix your bugs in such a critical component of the distribution is > pure foolishness. The simple answer to this is to establish a non-antagonistic relationship. Their reason for fixing the bugs is that, as a group, the FreeBSD folks would represent a significant portion of their consumers. Plus the folks who currently work on the FreeBSD libraries would work on the NetBSD ones instead, and reduce the load on both groups so they can concentrate on other problems. > When changes are made to our libraries that mirror those made in the > NetBSD libraries (with attributions and explanations) then we are less > dependant on those folks to make fixes, and can do a much better job of > tracking down the problems that *will* occur. > > Replacing the FreeBSD libraries w/out history is something I will oppose > vehemently. Would CTM'ing the library portion of the NetBSD tree be satisfactory? Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502272059.AA03315>