On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:20:04PM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they
> really so precious that they can only be incremented once for a release
> cycle?
Yes. I don't want to be in a position where we wonder what happened to
libc.so.5 when I don't see it in my /usr/lib/ or /usr/lib/compat/
> Seems to me that a new major number is far cleaner than a gross hack.
I am very against this.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- -CURRENT is bad for me... John Indra
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Warner Losh
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Warner Losh
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me..... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Alex Zepeda
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... David O'Brien
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Peter Wemm
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Alex Zepeda
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... David O'Brien
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Dag-Erling Smorgrav
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... David O'Brien
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Warner Losh
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... John Indra
