Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>