Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:23:35 +0000 From: Paul "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Richards=FC?=" <paul@freebsd-services.co.uk> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Jim Mock <mij@osdn.com>, Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo@eircom.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: More BETA evilness Re: BETA induced nervousness Message-ID: <3AB2BC97.6CCF6F6B@freebsd-services.co.uk> References: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0103161757240.26609-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> <3AB2B9F4.B772ED78@freebsd-services.co.uk> <20010316201917.G61859@ohm.physics.purdue.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Will Andrews wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:12:20AM +0000, Paul Richardsü wrote: > > It doesn't seem like setting the OS version to beta gains us anything, > > we might as well do > > Wrong. You obviously never tried building ports before only to discover > that they break in strange ways because of stupid version checking configure > scripts or otherwise. This was a real problem in the olden days. We > still need to do this to catch other mistakes. > > IMO we still need something, but it need not be called BETA, it can be > called PRERELEASE (which is what Kris suggested). Or ports fixing happens after the -release tag is laid. That seems more logical to me, finalise the OS then check all the ports work. It would also be the case that if ports were more portable across FreeBSD versions this would be less of any issue. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AB2BC97.6CCF6F6B>