Short answer: -stable builds fine.
Long answer: It only builds fine if you don't use non-standard build
flags like SHARED=symlinks, which some people appear to be using since
they're reporting problems. On a completely stock -stable system as
of yesterday, I can report:
>>> elf make world start
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 03:08:38PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Short answer: -stable builds fine.
I know. I said just yesterday on this list that it builds fine.
SSH didn't work properly for four days, but it built just fine.
If the only qualification code must meet for STABLE is that it com
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Short answer: -stable builds fine.
>
> Long answer: It only builds fine if you don't use non-standard build
> flags like SHARED=symlinks, which some people appear to be using since
> they're reporting problems. On a completely stock -stable system as
> of yesterday, I ca
Hmmm. It seems like this thread has degraded to simple
project-bashing so I'll not be a party to keeping it on life support
any longer. Suffice it to say that people make mistakes and of far
greater importance is whether or not they realize it when they do and
correct those mistakes. The pam/ss
On 11-Jun-2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Short answer: -stable builds fine.
Let me reinforce Russel's mail to the list. As of right now, it's not
building fine. libpam won't even "make clean" on a brand new box with
no /usr/obj/* and no /etc/make.conf at all.
I can't speak to the earlier breaka
On 11-Jun-2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Hmmm. It seems like this thread has degraded to simple
> project-bashing so I'll not be a party to keeping it on life support
> any longer.
I don't think this is the case at all. For whatever it's worth, it
doesn't appear that the stability of -stable is
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Hmmm. It seems like this thread has degraded to simple
> project-bashing so I'll not be a party to keeping it on life support
> any longer. Suffice it to say that people make mistakes and of far
> greater importance is whether or not they realize it when they do and
> co
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Finally, let's not forget that nobody is FORCING you to run -stable.
> In fact, users in your category are always recommended to stick with
> the releases and not upgrade until a new one comes out so I'm not
> even sure why we're having this conversati
> On 11-Jun-2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > Hmmm. It seems like this thread has degraded to simple
> > project-bashing so I'll not be a party to keeping it on life support
> > any longer.
>
> I don't think this is the case at all. For whatever it's worth, it
> doesn't appear that the stability
++ 12/06/01 10:51 +1200 - Juha Saarinen:
| I'm confused about this. The Handbook says to track -STABLE, if errr...
| you want stability. Are you saying that in order to have a stable system,
| we should stick with -RELEASE?
|
Perhaps the handbook should be updated then. If you want maximum
"sta
From: Juha Saarinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore?
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:51:31 +1200 (NZST)
> I'm confused about this. The Handbook says to track -STABLE, if errr...
> you want stability. Are you saying that in order to have a stable system,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
...
: Which means that you shouldn't track it if you have no tolerance for
: such things. That's what -releases are for.
Or what the new security release only tag (RELENG_4_3) is for :) I imagine
that it wo
I run a test server comparable to my production server. I ALWAYS test my
upgrades on the test server before compiling the same src in production.
IMHO, it would be quite foolish to do otherwise.
Jeff Love
Burgh-Com
- Original Message -
From: "Mixtim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTE
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 03:32:17PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Finally, let's not forget that nobody is FORCING you to run -stable.
> In fact, users in your category are always recommended to stick with
> the releases and not upgrade until a new one comes out so I'm not
> even sure why we're ha
14 matches
Mail list logo
