From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 28 11:50:20 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id LAA00592 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:50:20 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA00586 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:50:14 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA09908; Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:17:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:17:16 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199502281817.LAA09908@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) "Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD" (Feb 28, 9:55am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Ahh, this assumes that you have read access to the RAW CVS tree. This > > is *NOT* the case with the NetBSD sources. I'm coming from the > > assumption which affects me. I *don't* have access to the raw > > NetBSD-CVS bits, and I doubt highly you would get access to them for the > > purpose of taking them for FreeBSD. > > No, it assumes you have read access to a CTM mirror of the RAW CVS tree. Same difference. > And you can't make your other assumption unless you ask. True, but based on past experience I have a pretty good idea. > I'm suprised we haven't seen a response from Chris or Charles yet; it's > either that they agree with you or that they (wisely, apparently) don't > want to be involved in the discussion. Probably the latter. Nate