On Thu, 09 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > I'm more tempted to revert to the major/minor versioning.
>
> ELF has no minor revision number (IMO a mistake, but it's not my call).
I agree that it is a mistake.
However, if you think of "major" changes as different libraries, it does make
sense. W
On Thu, 09 Sep 1999, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> I'm more tempted to revert to the major/minor versioning. Every change
> triggers a minor version bump, but only if the library is still backwards
> compatible with minor version 0 and the same major version. Otherwise a
> major
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Marc Slemko wrote:
> The reasoning: reading from kernel data structures without any locking has
> obvious race conditions.
[...]
> This is why netstat will often bail out in the middle with kvm errors on a
> busy machine with lots of TCP connections, especially if you slow
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> > However, this applies to the functionality wherever it is implemented.
> > Moving the formatting to the kernel does not change anything.
>
> It "changes" things in that it unnecessarily bloats the kernel.
I agree. My reference was in relation to the
On Thu, 09 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > I'm more tempted to revert to the major/minor versioning.
>
> ELF has no minor revision number (IMO a mistake, but it's not my call).
I agree that it is a mistake.
However, if you think of "major" changes as different libraries, it does make
sense.
On Thu, 09 Sep 1999, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> I'm more tempted to revert to the major/minor versioning. Every change
> triggers a minor version bump, but only if the library is still backwards
> compatible with minor version 0 and the same major version. Otherwise a
> majo
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Shaun Amy, CSIRO TIP/ATNF wrote:
> Basically I am trying to install 4.0-RELEASE (off a CD I burnt from the ISO
> image whilst I wait for the WC CD kit) on a Dell Latitude CPi laptop (which
> has run FreeBSD 2.2.x and FreeBSD 3.2 in the past). I boot off floppy, do
> the inst
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000, Ted Sikora wrote:
> I wanted to upgrade several production servers to 4.0 and follow the
> stable branch. Has 4.0-STABLE been established yet or is stable still
> RELENG_3? I planned on installing 4.0-RELEASE and then using CVSup with
> RELENG_4.
Ignore "STABLE" and "CURRENT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > In the case of FreeBSD, when you change the release status ...
> Feel free to change CVS to work that way and then submit patches.
But that IS the way CVS works. There is NO "STABLE" tag. The t
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000, Daniel Sobral wrote:
> > But that IS the way CVS works. There is NO "STABLE" tag. The tag is
> > "RELENG_4".
> >
> > If you want CVS to reflect the way you describe the system, you would
> > have to change the repository to match your description. I advocate that
> > we chang
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Since the move to /etc/defaults/rc.conf, one of the consistent examples
> of foot-shooting is the user blindly copying that file to /etc/rc.conf
> without reading the warning at the end not to do this, or at least to
> delete the bit at the end that
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
> I have another idea: We make a sh script named "rcsource" or whatever,
> which we source when we want to have the rc environment,
[snip]
> One possible extension may be a specifier of a preprocessor for a file:
>
> preprocessor__etc_defaults_rc.c
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Greg Lehey wrote:
> [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
>
> On Wednesday, 14 June 2000 at 1:00:27 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > So, if you are in the Singapore Changi international airport,
> > the internet center in the transit area will
13 matches
Mail list logo
