From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Mar 31 14:46:35 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA05157
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05146
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Root.COM (8.7.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA07341; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199603312246.OAA07341@Root.COM>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.Root.COM: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: We need to do another XFree86 release for -current someday soon.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:52:58 MST."
             <199603312152.OAA12006@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:46:44 -0800
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> > : Please, that isn't good enough to justify the cost.  Stub them to
>> > : return errors.
>> > 
>> > i would vote for this too
>> 
>> Funny, nobody complained back when Garrett did announce his intention.
>
>I did, on principle that you should never delete code, and that the
>code was not intrinsically broken ...it was just an incomplete job of
>changing some related code that is causing it to not operate.  IMO, it
>is the responsibility of an engineer changing an interface to change
>the system code using the interface as well.  I wouldn't expect a
>change in the proc structure to get in without a corresponding change
>in "ps".

   In general this is true. In this case, however, we made a conscious and
deliberate decision to stop supporting the code. This coupled with the
consensus that broken and unsupported code should be removed rather than
fester in the source tree is what led to its removal.
   The "2.2" release is a long way off and we'll likely have other reasons for
bumping the library major number before the release happens. If people want to
run code that is 6-9 months away from release, then they should be prepared to
deal with a few "bumps" along the way. This has always been our stated policy
about -current, so nothing 'new' here.
   I fully support the removal of code from libc as well as the major number
bump. We have a policy of providing backward compatibility via our "compat"
distributions and we'll continue to support older binaries with this mechanism.
Future XFree86 releases should be built against RELEASE versions of FreeBSD. I
believe this has always been their policy, so nothing 'new' here, either.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project