From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 17 00:07:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B4C16A4CE; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:07:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3977A43D1D; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:07:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.200] ([192.168.254.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9H07v6U031895; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:07:58 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4171B781.7010106@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:06:25 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garance A Drosihn References: <20041016174419.GA96297@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal to restore traditional BSD behavior in . X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:07:55 -0000 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 10:44 AM -0700 10/16/04, David O'Brien wrote: > >> I'd like to restore the traditional BSD behavior that >> includes the content of in addition to the BSD bcmp, >> et. al. We changed our between 4.x and 5.x and now >> that we're at 5-STABLE I'm finding software that built fine on >> 4.x has an issue on 5.x. > > > I think it is definitely too late to do this for 5.3-RELEASE, > because we have no idea what software might be compiling fine > right now, but may break due to namespace conflicts if > starts pulling in . > > It looks like 5.x has gone 2 and a half years with not > including , and if we also ship 5.3-release in that state > then I suspect there isn't much point in switching back after > 5.3-release. I have no particular objection to the *idea*, but I > think we are past the point were we could make such a change. > We are indeed past the point for doing this for 5.3 and also RELENG_5. Scott