From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Feb 15 10:18:24 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5CD637B401
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f1FIIHk27229;
	Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:18:17 -0800 (PST)
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>
References: <200102151536.f1FFaeE77660@billy-club.village.org> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010215125446.7929A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
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
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

* 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