From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Aug 3 03:59:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA19409 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from news1.gtn.com (news1.gtn.com [194.77.0.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA19377; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by news1.gtn.com (8.7.2/8.7.2) with UUCP id MAA11940; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 12:45:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from andreas@localhost) by klemm.gtn.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA19821; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 12:23:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <19970803122321.15396@klemm.gtn.com> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 12:23:21 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm To: Chuck Robey Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) References: <15692.870549801@time.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 0.79 In-Reply-To: ; from Chuck Robey on Sat, Aug 02, 1997 at 11:36:41PM -0400 X-Disclaimer: A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT SMP Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, Aug 02, 1997 at 11:36:41PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > This argument is not really centered on being bloatist, at least not > totally. I would fight taking perl out of the kernel (I want perl5.004 > brought in) but I'll be pleased to see tcl make an exit. Might a > compromise be made, let tcl go away, in exchange for updating perl? The whole thing started with Satoshi´s citicism about the -current "circus". This came up because of great differences between -current and -stable, which makes it nearly impossible, to support a 1028 ports monster. So he wanted only to support -stable in the future. But I think this is a step behind. Ports have to be buildable on -current and -stable, because : a) -current is the next upcoming -stable release b) people like me, who have only one machine, usually run the bleeding edge, c) people who have interest in trying SMP are boud to current Figure out, if ports are only made for stable ... If -current does more and more incompatible changes to -stable ... Who should done the fine work of porting perhaps 1250 ports to -current, which will become 3.0-RELEASE and 3.0-STABLE after that ??? I think the only question is ... what has to be done now, that ports are buildable under -current _AND_ -stable fine without too much problems. So to say .... This is not a decision of dropping a pet toy, it is a decision of a release engineer, who is responsible for the direction of the OS and that a ports collection doesn´t get out of sync with everything other than 2.2-STABLE. Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm | klemm.gtn.com - powered by Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/benches.html