From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Feb 19 0:28: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3C337B4EC for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:28:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1J8MOH16344; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:22:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: Marcel Moolenaar Cc: Mark Murray , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Moving Things In-Reply-To: Message from Marcel Moolenaar of "Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:57:47 PST." <3A90D1FB.D02C2931@cup.hp.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:22:24 -0800 Message-ID: <16340.982570944@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I suddenly have to think about the Garden of Eden, apples and snakes. If you want to benefit from the eating of the apple of knowledge, you have to be prepared to contend with the occasional snake too. :) > If so, how does that allow us to create a configuration in which we > replace a core tool, such as a compiler so that we can benefit from it > on certain platforms? Radical surgery like that is always risky, all we're suggesting is that the surgeons be given something a little better than a bottle of whiskey and a rusty razor blade to work with. > True. Do you see a benefit for FreeBSD when this happens? Don't you > think that strictness and well-definedness and FreeBSD developers don't > go together? Can you say style(9)? Absolutely. Just because some developers have a problem with style(9) doesn't mean it's a bad idea or that we should never ever write something like the style(9) man page again just because the last such document wasn't followed with 100% slavish compliance. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message