From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 3 13:39:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA15647 for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 13:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (Ilsa.StevesCafe.com [205.168.119.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA15636 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 13:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA04677; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 14:39:04 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199708032039.OAA04677@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 From: Steve Passe To: Tom cc: Andreas Klemm , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current is currently really a mess (was: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 03 Aug 1997 12:36:03 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 14:39:04 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id NAA15641 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, > > Ok, I could switch to -STABLE, but would loose SMP support. > > I think it possible to boot a SMP kernel on a 2.2-stable system. Some > kernel structures have changed, so there may be some impairment. Trying to run SMP on anything but 3.0 is a loosing situation. I dont think it is even possible. On the general issue of loosing ports-current, I must say it is a big negative for me. While it is true that I am "capable" of dealing with the things necessary to get some odd collection of code built and installed, the issue is TIME. For every hour I spend getting some utility I need working, its one hour less I spend programming SMP. I have always thought of the ports tree as a mechanism for conserving time. One person does the work to port code to FreeBSD, then encapsolates that work into a port. A HUGE time-savings for all those that follow who don't have to do it all over again. If we loose ports-current there will be a lot more hours spent by 3.0-current developers just getting the tools together they need. On the tcl beta issue, I think we're forgetting that tcl has always been a royal pain as far an the "version thing" is concerned. Every time I turn around I get bit by the wrong tcl header being in place. Tcl is a problem in and of itself that needs work. Having said all this I will live with it I suppose... I don't have the time to work on the ports tree, and thus can't make any demands. The people doing the work have to be the ones with the final word. -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD