Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:18:17 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The whole libc thing. Message-ID: <20010215101817.G3274@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010215125446.7929A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>; from eischen@vigrid.com on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:14:44PM -0500 References: <200102151536.f1FFaeE77660@billy-club.village.org> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010215125446.7929A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> [010215 10:15] wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010215091552.2023A@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Daniel Eischen writes: > > : Let's just bump the libraries and be done with it. > > > > That's *ALL* the libraries, even in ports? > > Hmm, perhaps not then. It would be nice to get rid of __sF; if we > don't do it now, will we ever? I still think that no matter how painful we should just loose __sF in -current, afaik the only thing depending on it is the std* macros. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010215101817.G3274>