Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:01:23 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: stupid question about stable and current :-) Message-ID: <20000224120123.K21720@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002241435310.20835-100000@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>; from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org on Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 02:42:36PM %2B0000 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002241435310.20835-100000@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> [000224 07:12] wrote: > As i peruse the list of issues in -current, i can't help but wonder > how BSD will still run older apps when it seems the system is being > gutted. I see so many things being changed and tweaked and rewritten. > Is the work being done now to make -current work with all the ports > and basic system programs? Is this the period where all the breakages > are being fixed? Or is this the period where the bridges to the past > are burned in the name of progress, and now all ports must be from the > -current collect rather than 3.x-stable? DOes this question make any > sense? > > Here's another way to put it: with all the breakages being fixed for > ports and other progs, do these usually have unwanted side effects? We are very careful to maintain binary compatibility, consider Xig who still makes an aout version of thier X server it works, certain other things such as kernel internal APIs and locations of executables and config files will change, but that only happens in the HEAD branch (-current). Basically, if you can't run a 2.2.x program that doesn't rely on kernel internals and file locations we'd like to know. :) -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000224120123.K21720>