From owner-freebsd-doc Sat May 11 4:10: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066D937B407 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 04:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g4BBA5048691; Sat, 11 May 2002 04:10:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 04:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200205111110.g4BBA5048691@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Martin Heinen Subject: Re: docs/37943: [PATCH] minor corrections for cutting-edge Reply-To: Martin Heinen Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR docs/37943; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Martin Heinen To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/37943: [PATCH] minor corrections for cutting-edge Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 13:09:17 +0200 On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 12:27:02PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > The majority of the changes look fine. Where I am commenting below, > there are a few fine points I was thinking about. > > On 2002-05-11 00:46, Martin Heinen wrote: > > - The most recent example of this is when the > - (later renamed > + The most recent example of this is when the ppp group > > + (later renamed network) was added. Users had the > > This is also touched by patches of another PR I was reading. One > submitted by Greg Shapiro. If someone commits this one or the diff I > sent in the audit trail of that PR a little merging work will be > necessary for this part ;) As Greg noted, this section needs some work. Therefore we can drop my suggestions and use PR 36773 instead. > > - Pentium 3 with 128 MB of RAM takes about 2 hours to build > > + Pentium III with 128 MB of RAM takes about 2 hours to build > > Is this really necessary? I'm not saying it's wrong or something. > But is III the way these processors should be referred to in written > text? I compared with Intels Website: http://www.intel.com/products/browse/processor.htm?iid=ipp_nav+browse_proc& According to this page it's Pentium III (note the Pentium 4 !). -- Marxpitn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message