Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 12:51:40 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: jbeukema@hk.super.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD Message-ID: <9502271951.AA02892@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199502262238.PAA02352@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Feb 26, 95 03:38:35 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Let's assume for a moment that one group or the other 'gives up control' > on ALL (remember, even things like libkvm are still shlibs). That means > the one person *must* at all times follow each and every commit message > that is done by NetBSD (since we don't have the ability to track the > changes except by seeing the commit messages) and merge those changes > into FreeBSD. If that isn't done, there is no way of tracking errors, > and with something so absolutely critical to the system like the > libraries, it is essential that changes can be tracked. After these > changes are integrated into the FreeBSD libraries, then this person must > guarantee that the libraries changes do not require any changes to the > corresponding utilities. And those differences don't require changes to Well, part of being an OEM means: o You don't follow every commit message. You make code-cuts. o You don't "merge". You replace. o You don't track errors. They track errors. The question is whether is is an acceptable way to handle the problem or not. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502271951.AA02892>