From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 10 17:21:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13923 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:21:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from acroal.com (firewall0.acroal.com [209.24.61.154]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13890 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:20:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@acroal.com) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by acroal.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA26457; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:05:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@acroal.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:05:53 -0800 (PST) From: "J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect" To: "John S. Dyson" cc: jasone@canonware.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OS Ports In-Reply-To: <199712110050.TAA01175@dyson.iquest.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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 >