Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:05:53 -0800 (PST) From: "J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect" <jamil@acroal.com> To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: jasone@canonware.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OS Ports Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971210170059.26293C-100000@acroal.com> In-Reply-To: <199712110050.TAA01175@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Boy I got flamed for that remark, my point was that if he is going to do a port of FreeBSD and it is going to be meaningful it needs to be stable (Theyv'e already got a Linux port for SPARCS). I'm not saying that -current is not stable, maybye what I am trying to say is that he needs both. Anyway do you want everyone using SPARC FreeBSD to be running -current? Anyway your in for a big project. On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, John S. Dyson wrote: > J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect said: > > > > Wouldn't porting -stable first be a better project, after all you want a > > quality product and that is what stable is. > > > Respectfully, it probably would not be a good idea, but it would be better to > start from a recent, stable -current. It is *much* easier to get support from > the developers on -current. -stable is approaching a year old now. > > -- > John > dyson@freebsd.org > jdyson@nc.com >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971210170059.26293C-100000>