From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Jun 2 12:59: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from relay.nuxi.com (nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu [169.237.7.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C6337B422 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@nuxi.ucdavis.edu) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (root@trang.muxi.com [206.40.252.115] (may be forged)) by relay.nuxi.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f52Jwvl83644; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:58:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f52Jwui83219; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:58:56 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: Matt Dillon , David Wolfskill , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-standards@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong Message-ID: <20010602125856.L31257@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200106020823.f528N5O98998@earth.backplane.com> <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <20010602124907.G31257@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from drosih@rpi.edu on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 03:56:10PM -0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 03:56:10PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 12:49 PM -0700 6/2/01, David O'Brien wrote: > >On Sat, Jun 02, 2001, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > I don't have any strong feeling about what is "right" in this > > > case, but I do think it would be appropriate to back out the > >> change to time_t until the question *is* correctly sorted out. > > > >I don't see why? We can't even agree there is a problem. And if > >dangerous kernel commits can stay in, so can this one. > > ...also, in situations where "we can't agree there is a problem", > I thought we were supposed to favor the status quo (ie, pre-update) > over rushing in to fix something which we can not agree is broken. We've just *started* the disucussion. If we can decide on it in 48-hours why toss the repo back and forth. Also show me the errors in other programs from this. We need to fix them anyway as Alpha and i386 will have same sized time_t. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message