From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 27 05:15:48 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AD5106564A; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:15:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8692C8FC12; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:15:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadk27 with SMTP id k27so8440421iad.13 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:15:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Q/XGav0nm/Douc49GuSnVoEA40O0WECS5BBiiStn+1g=; b=pGrSKgwOlVjZRXx3gbncN+q2W6F5lfXFkI0QcWITNvbdmbLzXNmEC8GV1cU7yS4vxo H5NamVp7ZPFuxT8N4CpLGF9RaiFfxVUEKCowBHNsz83z2p/RLyKxXb+K4LGfVSj9FLKF Lcmg4p46sXTct9XogmFJ95wChK0KU6Mfjp+xw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.28.5 with SMTP id l5mr8707566icc.224.1317100547879; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.36.69 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:15:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110926230335.041fd9aa@lab.lovett.com> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:15:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Kevin Oberman To: Garrett Cooper Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, ade@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:15:48 -0000 On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > It's not the FreeBSD dev's fault. Unfortunately the autotools folks > were microoptimizing and didn't consider that the future would come > sooner than it actually did. Garrett, First, I'm not complaining or criticizing any of the developers and I am very grateful to aDe for maintaining them as I get a headache every time I start looking at them. I am baffled in my attempts to parse "didn't consider that the future would come sooner than it actually did". Is that what you really meant, because it's self-contradictory? Or am I just confused. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer - Retired E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com