<advocate type="devils">
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 08:13:37PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
[snip]
> "Q: Why shouldn't I just go ahead and run -current? That's got
> all the latest stuff, right?
[snip]
> If you can live with that, and think you have any compelling reason
> to run -current, read the handbook for further instructions.
>
> Sorry if this seems too harsh, but many people are just not used to
> the concept of a development tree available publicly, and think of
> it as the "latest version". It is *not* the latest version. When it
> is *ready*, it will be the latest version. Until then... read the
> above."
>
> Any other question?
Q: I want to use this cool piece of software that's in the FreeBSD
ports system. But I can't build it on my 3.x-stable system.
Why not?
A: Ah, sorry. The ports system only targets -current, trying to get
it to work with -stable is too much work. If you want to be sure
of using the ports system successfully you need to be running
-current.
</advocate>
Or was this policy reversed recently and I didn't notice (always a
likely possibility).
[ And yes, I *know* the ports system relies on volunteers, and that if
people can't be bothered to test their ports on a -stable system then
there's not a lot we can do about it. But this does lead to the
amusing situation (for various values of "amusing") where on one hand
we're telling people not to use -current unless they really know what
they're doing, but on the other hand we're (in some cases) preventing
them from using a major piece of FreeBSD infrastructure which is
expressly designed to make life easier for exactly the sort of people
who should be running -stable. ]
N
--
[intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed,
non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs
the links.
-- Tom Christiansen in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
