Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:45:34 -0700 From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk =?KOI8-R?B?5M3J1NLJyiDrz8jNwc7Ayw==?= <dk@farm.org> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, pechter@lakewood.com, dk+@ua.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UUCP (important clarification) Message-ID: <19971005234534.44590@dog.farm.org> In-Reply-To: <19971004101846.12337@lemis.com>; from "Greg Lehey" on Sat, Oct 04, 1997 at 10:18:46AM %2B0930 References: <199710031354.JAA04901@i4got.lakewood.com> <199710031430.AAA00858@word.smith.net.au> <19971004101846.12337@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 04, 1997 at 10:18:46AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > > ie. HAVE_HDB_CONFIG and HAVE_V2_CONFIG should be set to 1 in /usr/src/ > > gnu/libexec/uucp/common_source/policy.h. exactly - I have posted a (obvious) patch for this in my other message... > > This wouldn't cost anything functionality-wise, and would make Bill > > happy. Can we achieve enough consensus on this to make it into 2.2.5? > > It's a good thing that you said this. I misunderstood Bill, and I'm > sure a lot of other people do. I agree with this suggestion, and not > what I understood Bill to have said. > > I can't really see this getting changed for 2.2.5, though. Hmm. Why simple 2-line patch which enables more functionality already present in a externally contributed package which is not a part of core system cannot be committed to a version which is still in beta? And we have people who can test it (keeping in mind that Taylor UUCP is pretty mature by itself). Who can decide on this? Is there a conspiracy behind it? ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971005234534.44590>