Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:23:02 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Message-ID: <200612222123.02966.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <200612221106.59985.fcash@ocis.net> References: <39AFDF50473FED469B15B6DFF2262F7A0273C975@DEHHX001.deuser.de.intra> <200612221106.59985.fcash@ocis.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 22 December 2006 16:06, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Friday 22 December 2006 08:09 am, Helge.Oldach@atosorigin.com wrote: > > Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM: > > Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is "unstable". After all, > > it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd say from experience that the > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ v1.0 > Not for the reason you think. -STABLE in FreeBSD means API/ABI stability, v2.0 > not necessarily system stability. It's a promise that a binary compiled > on 6.0-RELEASE will run on 6.32-RELEASE without needing to recompile it v11.0 > (with very few exceptions). v45.0 it doesn't matter how many times it is told or not told at all, it will be= =20 ever and ever again told wrong again :) (please note the odd numbers on certain versions :) so be carefull huh) =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612222123.02966.joao>