From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Sep 27 18:53:11 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA29164
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA29128
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA27316; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth)
cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: libz.so.1.0 where are you? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Sep 1996 20:49:14 CDT."
             <v02140b08ae7233f6f22e@[208.2.87.4]> 
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:52:55 -0700
Message-ID: <27314.843875575@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> Is there some reason that the library was not brought into the -stable tre
e?
> >
> >None that I see, just a matter of testing and time.
> 
> IMHO, even untested, inclusion is better than NOT AVAILABLE.

Even if it doesn't build and breaks the world? :-) Obviously, *some*
degree of testing should be considered an acceptable minimum
requirement.

					Jordan