On Sep 27, 2011 10:04 AM, "Chris Rees" <cr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht <me...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote: > >> >Kevin Oberman<kob6...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > > >> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett<a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be > >> >>>expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while. > >> >>> > >> >>>The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely > >> >>>at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit > >> >>>major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie: > >> >>>FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10". > >> >[...] > >> >> > >> >>aDe, > >> >> > >> >>Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching > >> >>entry when ports/ is "unbroken"). > >> > > >> >Also mention a workaround, e.g. > >> > > >> > $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH' > >> > >> > >> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for > >> their tenth version of their operating system ... > > > > At least there will be a long rest after > > the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100. > > > > > I'm afraid not; > > freebsd2*) > > We'll be just as screwed at 20. > > Hopefully we can fix that at the same time. > > Chris >
Now is the moment we grab 'BSD', dropping the 'Free', and start fresh at a 1.x point... Rebrand and be more conservative with release numbering... Crazy right? Sorry for the noise... (Goes off to check the status of bsd.org) -Brandon _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
