From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Nov 15 21:58:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC9F37B69C; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:58:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eAG5wQI48723; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:58:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Subject: Re: libc shlib version In-Reply-To: Message from Nate Williams of "Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:53:52 MST." <200011152253.PAA00534@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:58:26 -0800 Message-ID: <48719.974354306@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > You've *GOT* to be kidding, right? The business world lives on 'fuzzy' > schedules. No, the business world *copes* with fuzzy schedules, it does not excel from relying on such fuzziness though. Many of the most successful projects succeed only because one or more people get a firm enough grip on them to be unfuzzy in all the areas that count and get the necessary features done in time. There are scores of unsuccessful projects which also fail because they're overcome with fuzz. I would prefer that we be one of the latter, hence my statement. :) > It's not just the library that's change, so bumping the libc bersion > will not solve the kernel incompatability problems. That depends on what value of "solve" you're shooting for, and you know that well enough. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message