From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 3 16:32:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA26004 for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.tar.com (ns.tar.com [204.95.187.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA25999 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppro.tar.com (ppro.tar.com [204.95.187.9]) by ns.tar.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA20309; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:31:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199708032331.SAA20309@ns.tar.com> From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." To: "Terry Lambert" Cc: "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG" Date: Sun, 03 Aug 97 18:31:32 -0500 Reply-To: "Richard Seaman, Jr." Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.92 For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Current is currently really a mess (was: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 3 Aug 1997 15:54:54 -0700 (MST), Terry Lambert wrote: >In any case, it is a mistake to always grab the most recent >version of everything, and then try and jam it into a box with >"stable" written on the outside. New versions of things (bind, >in this case) are frequently *not* stable, and should not be >represented as such. I don't disagree with this idea. In the case of bind 4.9.6 (or bind 8.1.1) there are security fixes that some users might want, whereas others, like you, might prefer an older version, for reasons you mention. Seems to me that this is an argument for keeping substantial packages out of the OS tree and in the ports tree instead, if possible. Then the user can be more selective in upgrading. Its also a reason for keeping more than one version of some applications in the "ports" tree.