From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 14 12:12:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23083 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:12:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ics.com (ics.com [140.186.40.192]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA23068 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:12:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kaleb@ics.com) Received: from ics.com (kaleb@teapot.ics.com [140.186.40.160]) by ics.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id PAA29537 Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35D48ABF.E82E5037@ics.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:06:39 +0000 From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" Organization: Integrated Computer Solutions X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b1 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t References: <199808141115.FAA21672@lariat.lariat.org> <199808141526.JAA23467@lariat.lariat.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brett Glass wrote: > > I believe that Linux is already moving to a 64-bit time_t. Linux isn't exactly known for being stable or easy to develop on, and nobody in the Linux camp has ever shown to my satisfaction that they really appreciate things like source and binary compatibility from one release to the next. > The BSDs > are behind. Maybe that's why there's resistance here (I can't figure > out any LOGICAL reason for resisting this necessary change.) > Because you don't know what things changing it might break? I'm just guessing but I wonder if there wouldn't be less resistance if someone (you?) took it upon your self to setup a system, change time_t to a 64-bit type, build-and-install the whole world, and let everyone know how it went. -- Kaleb S. KEITHLEY To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message