On Friday 22 December 2006 16:06, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Friday 22 December 2006 08:09 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM: > > Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is "unstable". After all, > > it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd say from experience that the > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
v1.0 > Not for the reason you think. -STABLE in FreeBSD means API/ABI stability, v2.0 > not necessarily system stability. It's a promise that a binary compiled > on 6.0-RELEASE will run on 6.32-RELEASE without needing to recompile it v11.0 > (with very few exceptions). v45.0 it doesn't matter how many times it is told or not told at all, it will be ever and ever again told wrong again :) (please note the odd numbers on certain versions :) so be carefull huh) -- João A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
