List, please correct me if I am wrong: The business-as-usual practice would be to not run -Stable, but rather run a -Release. -Stable, although more stable than -Current, should not be run in business-production, although my hunch is that many small environments do.
If you are running -Stable, then chances are you have some technical knowledge, and could contribute back to the project, in which case including debugging options could be helpful. Any other thoughts? -Matt On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 12:10, joe wrote: > Is it a best practice to include debuging options in a -STABLE tree > kernel? > > I have read the following article which suggests that a business-as- > usual practice should be to include debugging options. > > >http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2002/03/21/Big_Scary_Daemons.html?page=1 > > The kernel developer's handbook > >(http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/kerneldebug.html) > > does not offer an opinion > > Is there some alternative thinking? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Joe Sotham > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Christianity got over the difficulty of furious opposites by keeping > them both and keeping them furious. > - G.K. Chesterton > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
