Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:13:16 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes Message-ID: <20020404011316.GB93977@madman.nectar.cc> In-Reply-To: <p0510150db8d1539dd305@[128.113.24.47]> <3CAB99D4.6010407@tenebras.com> <20020403224722.R59420-100000@patrocles.silby.com> References: <20020403224722.R59420-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <p0510150db8d1539dd305@[128.113.24.47]> <20020403224722.R59420-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <3CAB99D4.6010407@tenebras.com> <20020403223555.GA93977@madman.nectar.cc> <20020403224722.R59420-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:53:25PM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > As we have a RELENG_4_5 branch, I see no reason that I should hold off on > the change. It's mostly unimportant, not gratuitous. Well, Mike, I don't think I can put it more strongly. If you are insistent about making this change, I cannot stop you. I wish you would not. If it is not gratuitous, pray tell what benefit this change will bring. It will certainly snag a minority of folks, and that makes it a bad idea as far as I am concerned. On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 04:09:56PM -0800, Michael Sierchio wrote: > It isn't stable -- gratuitously updating on > a weekly or daily basis is for hobbyists. It's known to break things now > and then. We try very hard _not_ to break things. We break things only when there is a compelling reason to break them. Not because we just feel like it. > The idea of holding pending MFCs until we're in RC stage is far worse. As I implied in an earlier message, I would prefer that it never be merged to 4.x. > If you're interested in stability, you'll track RELENG_4_5, as Mike > suggests. I don't track RELENG_4_5. I _maintain_ the RELENG_4_5 and other security branches. On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 07:57:08PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > Chances are pretty good that they would not notice any such > problems until after they have done the "installworld" step, > and thus it is not necessarily a simple matter to "just go > back" to their previous kernel. Yes, it is worse. It probably will not happen until the run application X --- perhaps an ICQ client, or an FTP server, or whatever. It will fail, and for some people it will cost time to determine the cause and to repair it. This is not /so/ bad for someone tracking -STABLE, except that the whole problem can and should be avoided. > I would > feel a little better about making this change to -stable if > we knew what important (time-critical) issue that it was > fixing. BSD has used the low range ports ``forever''. There is absolutely no time-critical reason to change the default now. I don't think I'll be posting on the issue again, as the length of the thread will soon be disproportionate to the subject's importance, if it isn't already. :-) Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine <n@nectar.cc> http://www.nectar.cc/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020404011316.GB93977>