Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 21:15:33 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@dk.tfs.com> To: ade@demon.net Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@dk.tfs.com>, ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <1987.870549333@critter.dk.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:03:07 BST." <E0wujSG-00005W-00@genghis.eng.demon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <E0wujSG-00005W-00@genghis.eng.demon.net>, Ade Lovett writes: >>It sounds to me like a lot of people should seriously reconsider if >>they ought to run -current :-( > > >This seems to be something of an oversimplification. Whilst there >are undoubtedly people who are much more likely to be better off >running release (or perhaps -stable) code, there are quite a number >of people who need features (SMP, for example) that are only present >in -current. You know, I actualle don't see that as an excuse for running -current, but if you insist, at least don't try to use that kind of argument for trying to turn -current into -stable, OK ? >The problems come about when the base operating system contains >components that really shouldn't be there at all. TCL, Perl certainly >fall into this category, and there's probably quite a bit else which >would be better off in either ports, or an 'additions' package. I consider "options" equally bad in protocols and operating systems. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1987.870549333>