On 20/04/2016 2:25 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote:
For one of our Solaris 11 boxes, which also serves as a VNC
thin client server and NFS server, we have:
[sol11] $ pkg list | wc -l
968
That server includes t
On 04/20/16 06:01, Warren Block wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Why Wikipedia, specifically? There are a lot of places that describe
quicksort. How about just
Note: This implementation of qsort() is designed to avoid the
worst-case complexity of N**2 that is ofte
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:22:31AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:15:22AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Sadly the tenor an
2016-04-20 14:31 GMT+08:00 Poul-Henning Kamp :
>
> In message dp5k1vxfz7umkvhb-a_1m4fembptf5mghfqddy...@mail.gmail.com>
> , Marcelo Araujo writes:
>
> >I'm wondering if there is any objection to switch some codes to use MAX()
> >and MIN() macros from sys/param.h.
>
> IMO We shouldn't pol
In message
, Marcelo Araujo writes:
>I'm wondering if there is any objection to switch some codes to use MAX()
>and MIN() macros from sys/param.h.
IMO We shouldn't pollute with sys/param.h just for a couple of macros.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebs
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote:
For one of our Solaris 11 boxes, which also serves as a VNC
thin client server and NFS server, we have:
[sol11] $ pkg list | wc -l
968
That server includes the gnome desktop, firefox, thunderbird,
perl,
On 2016-04-20 01:12, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Russell L. Carter wrote:
>>
>> What is missing from this debate is some perspective from the POV of
>> actually existing packaging systems. I've been maintaining
>> debian-stable + debian-testing systems for over 15 years. The numb
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Julian Elischer wrote:
my problem with 400 packages is that is is hard to decide what you are
actually running.. or is it FreeBSD 11? is it FreeBSD 10.95342453?
you have no way to tell exactly what you have without comparing all the
packages to a known list.
uname doesn't
Hey,
As there is a kind of effort to clean up and do some cosmetic changes in
our source base.
I'm wondering if there is any objection to switch some codes to use MAX()
and MIN() macros from sys/param.h.
It will simplify code(readable), most of changes will be cosmetic changes
and not functional
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Russell L. Carter wrote:
What is missing from this debate is some perspective from the POV of
actually existing packaging systems. I've been maintaining
debian-stable + debian-testing systems for over 15 years. The number
of packaging glitches I've had I can count on one h
On 20/04/2016 11:41 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 04/19/16 20:15, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms
wrote:
On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
away, so if somebody doesn't like the
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 05:37:00AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
> Year after year you hear about new GsoC projects, then nothing. I find
> it hard to believe that none of those actually produced any useful code.
The goal of GSoC is to introduce new people to FreeBSD more than it is
to produce commit
Соберем для Вас по интернет базу данных потенциальных клиентов для Вашего
Бизнеса.
По базе можно звонить, писать, слать факсы и email,
вести любые прямые активные продажи Ваших товаров и услуг
Узнайте подробнее по
тел +79133913837 (whatsapp,viber,telegram)
Skype: prodawez389
Email: ammanakuw-7
>
> "I've given your response all the consideration that I think it's due.
> Please have
> a nice day."
Thank you, Warner. Knowing you did, brings warm feelings in my hearth.
Please have a nice day.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:15:22AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress
> is
> >> > made. The to
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:59 PM, dan_partelly wrote:
>
> >
> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is
> > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people
> into
> > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it a
> > disc
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:07:11 +, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress
is
>> > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds
people
>> into
>> > dust
On 04/19/16 21:07, Glen Barber wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is
made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people
into
dust, rather than motivating them to fix thin
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:59:38AM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
>
> >
> > Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is
> > made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people
> into
> > dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it a
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Why Wikipedia, specifically? There are a lot of places that describe
quicksort. How about just
Note: This implementation of qsort() is designed to avoid the
worst-case complexity of N**2 that is often seen with standard
versions.
I wo
>
> Sadly the tenor and tone of the discussion isn’t one where progress is
> made. The tone has been a bit toxic and demanding, which grinds people
into
> dust, rather than motivating them to fix things. You might call it a
> discussion, but it reads to me more as a bunch of angry villagers
storm
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:15:47PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote:
> >
> > On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
> >> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system
On 04/19/16 20:15, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote:
On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
pkg, they can very w
> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Matthew Grooms wrote:
>
> On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
>> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
>> pkg, they can very well roll their own.
>>
>>
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:09:30 +, "Poul-Henning Kamp"
wrote:
> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
> pkg, they can very well roll their own.
>
> It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the Fre
On 4/19/16 1:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
pkg, they can very well roll their own.
It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can
muster,
Can we only load the bus driver that is required by timer or pic? Then you
don't need worry about acpi_pci or pcib.
John Baldwin 于2016年4月20日周三 上午3:26写道：
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 03:42:40 PM Howard Su wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, April 18
On 19 Apr 2016, at 19:42, Matthew Grooms wrote:
I suspect that most of the negative reactions people are having is due
to the line being blurred between the base system and everything else.
Historically there has always been a clear distinction. By packaging
base and throwing it in with everyt
On 4/19/2016 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
pkg, they can very well roll their own.
It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can
muster,
I am sorry to maybe sound like an old grudge here, but can somebody take a
sweep at the bug reports filled against ports-mgt/pkg in the last year or
so? Packaging base system is surely challenging and exciting task, and
great bikesheed topic too, but there are lot of critical bugs in the code
that
* Adrian Chadd [160419 22:36]:
> It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally
> happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from
> mistakes.
right, thats what we have CURRENT for. Instead of discussing all
the things that could theoretically go wrong or make o
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Nathan Whitehorn
wrote:
>
>
> On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>
>> In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes:
>>
>>> Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a
>>> race to commit rather t
On 04/19/16 at 01:36P, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
>
> On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
> > In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes:
> >
> >> Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a
> >> race to commit rather than by
On 04/19/16 13:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes:
Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a
race to commit rather than by discussion.
No, that's not it.
It is because code talks much louder t
Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
Thanks, Roger. That seems perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure that goal is
really met by having 800 packages, though, or at least I see no particular
gain relative to a handful (where things like OpenSSL or sendmail would be
discrete things). (Almost) every single individ
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally
> happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from
> mistakes.
>
> Because, honestly - fuck it, we've been behind for too long. We need
> more mature tools and knowl
It's cool. I have positive and negative reactions, and I'm totally
happy to let people try it out at a larger scale and learn from
mistakes.
Because, honestly - fuck it, we've been behind for too long. We need
more mature tools and knowledge with this.
The irony of course is the people rolling ou
In message <1461096962.1232.32.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes:
>Oh yeah, now I remember: Because in freebsd, design is decided by a
>race to commit rather than by discussion.
No, that's not it.
It is because code talks much louder than words.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX
Hi!
> I don't see anybody, who say "remove this packaging code, it is all
> completely wrong, BS, whatever". All objections are against mechanical
> splitting base to 700+ packages, not against packaged base per se.
I also run a bunch of boxes, and I do not have a problem with
700+ base packages
On 19.04.2016 23:10, K. Macy wrote:
I don't like to see, as some participants of this thread write their
messages as if somebody in this thread are against packaging base with pkg.
I don't see anybody, who say "remove this packaging code, it is all
completely wrong, BS, whatever". All objection
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 20:09 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
> pkg, they can very well roll their own.
>
> It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
> away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
> pkg, they can very well roll their own.
>
> It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD proje
As far as I know, nobody is taking the source code or the Makefiles
away, so if somebody doesn't like the system being distributed with
pkg, they can very well roll their own.
It's nice to see the level of enthusiasm the FreeBSD project can
muster, I just wish it wasn't always enthusiasm for stopp
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:18:40 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> On 19.04.2016 19:28, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
> > 3. Have ~10 meta packages that just depend on sets of the 755 packages
> > and hide the internal details. This gives the user experience of (1)
> > with the implementation of (2), an
On 04/19/16 11:22, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote:
Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations,
often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this,
Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 03:42:40 PM Howard Su wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 11:10:12 PM Howard Su wrote:
> > > I noticed several places there are code like this, especially in some arm
> > > low level drivers.
> > > EARLY_DRIVER_MO
On 04/19/16 10:55, Roger Marquis wrote:
Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations,
often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this,
Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most
from base packages. Being able run to: 1) 'pk
Please, consider ops and admins, who must support old installations,
often made by other, not-reachable, people, and stuff like this,
Ops and admins such as myself are exactly the ones who will benefit most
from base packages. Being able run to: 1) 'pkg audit' and see that base
ssl has a vulner
On 19.04.2016 19:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Why is this even happening in email? If folks want "the right solution"
> then why aren't they submitting patches or pull requests to the pkg repo
> (or where ever this is stored?). This seems counter-intuitive, but
> really actually should be how i
On 19.04.2016 19:28, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> 3. Have ~10 meta packages that just depend on sets of the 755 packages
> and hide the internal details. This gives the user experience of (1)
> with the implementation of (2), and is marginally more complex than either.
How does it help Slawa with h
I don't think we need 100% consensus to proceed on anything and if I've
learned anything from 20 years in this community is that forcing that
issue does the community a huge disservice as well as turn off the code
submitters. See my thread on the missed opportunities in threads, or
if you wan
Well, this discussion has gone pretty far off of the rails. I am of
course happy to make a patch that cuts this down to 10 packages, but
that's not something that should be committed without agreement -- which
we obviously don't have. It would have been good to have had meaningful
discussion of
On 19.04.2016 17:33, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I am also confident that we will very easily sort out how to make
> "micropackages" or some such mechanism within at most 3 months after the
> code lands. The reason why is because I already see some excellent
> proposals for such mechanisms in this
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:18:48AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 1) Graciously and rapidly accept steps forward and then contribute to
> them. Anything else leaves you stagnant and worse for wear.
> 2) Simple over complex.
> 3) If something someone else did is working for someone, then copy i
On 18.04.2016 22:14, Glen Barber wrote:
>>> I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755
>>> packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such
>>> enormous number of packages?
>>
>> Just a guess, having done the same thing myself: it means that updates can
>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2016 11:10:12 PM Howard Su wrote:
> > I noticed several places there are code like this, especially in some arm
> > low level drivers.
> > EARLY_DRIVER_MODULE(aw_ccu, simplebus, aw_ccu_driver, aw_ccu_devclass,
> > 0, 0
On 4/19/16 7:47 AM, dan_partelly wrote:
Look, take a look at history and the Linux kernel threads story and its
impact on FreeBSD. If you'd like I can talk about it.
Please, yes, I would love to hear about it.
Sure, so back in late 90s, ~1999 sometime after Solaris released kernel
threads L
>
> Look, take a look at history and the Linux kernel threads story and its
> impact on FreeBSD. If you'd like I can talk about it.
>
Please, yes, I would love to hear about it.
> -Alfred
>
> ___
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> https
Greetings all.
I saw something the other day on a machine running 10/stable
(but the same code exists in -current), when it was rebooting.
The machine acts as a NFS fileserver (to support diskless booting
of a few test machines). It only has ZFS filesystems, and only
has filesystems that are ex
On 4/19/16 7:39 AM, dan_partelly wrote:
What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked
by those unwilling to hash out the next steps.
-Alfred
While incremental steps forward are great, how do you avoid situations
like VNET, where a "good enough" enough implementatio
>
> What should not happen is that this incremental step forward be blocked
> by those unwilling to hash out the next steps.
>
> -Alfred
>
>
While incremental steps forward are great, how do you avoid situations
like VNET, where a "good enough" enough implementation, usable in some
scenario
It is very important to understand that a packaged base is extremely
useful for those building any sort of distro or appliance distro.
So although the concept of "user serviceable" is important, it's not
just that. Such a change makes it easy for a distro or appliance making
to cherry pick up
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:27:52AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Again, the point is that those objecting should put aside the time to
> implement what you (and I) are suggesting:
>
> > I could live with:
> >
> > base-utils11.1
> > - ktrace uninstalled
> > - tcpdump uninstalled
> > +
Again, the point is that those objecting should put aside the time to
implement what you (and I) are suggesting:
I could live with:
base-utils11.1
- ktrace uninstalled
- tcpdump uninstalled
+ dd 11.1.1 (CVE-123412 fix)
but not
{700 packages )
dd 11.1.1 dd with CVE fix
{2
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:27:51PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:18:00PM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
> >
> > be as terse as possible. You guys seen the "Add remove programs"
> > in Windows control panel ? Thats sane. Even now the default output
> > of pkg borders insane
I dont know if you missed the point of my message on purpose or not.
I never pretended that you can't extract that information. I maintain that
having sane defaults would empower me to almost never care about aliases,
scripts
pipes, filter , regular expressions and what not. It is great that all
[replying to random post]
I have a weird feeling that the main problem with having a lot
of packages is that people have bad experiences from other systems.
But IMHO the root cause of those problems was not that you had
a lot of packages - the root cause was that it was used by distro
guys to stri
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:18:00PM +0300, dan_partelly wrote:
>
> be as terse as possible. You guys seen the "Add remove programs"
> in Windows control panel ? Thats sane. Even now the default output
> of pkg borders insane, when you have many packages installed. 99% of my
> time
> I dont reall
FreeBSD_HEAD_i386 - Build #2901 - Fixed:
Build information: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2901/
Full change log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2901/changes
Full build log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2901/console
Change summaries:
298
For what is worth, I agree with Julian Elischer. I do not
want to see hundreds of packages over tenths of screen pages.
Computers are supposed to make our life simpler. Human time is
very expensive. CPU time, almost free. And this include that I really
shouldn't have to think for usual work of
>
> And nowhere did it say "buildworld/buildkernel would no longer work."
>
> Glen
It may very well work, but you consider a listing of hundred of packages
on a
fresh system a sane default ?
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lis
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:41:29AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > > We've managed to k
> Why Wikipedia, specifically? There are a lot of places that describe
> quicksort. How about just
>
>Note: This implementation of qsort() is designed to avoid the
>worst-case complexity of N**2 that is often seen with standard
>versions.
I would say that this statement is just fal
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it in
> > > 1990. Firs
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 07:31:17AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it in
> > 1990. First we laughed/fumed at Sun's Solaris when they unbundled the
> > compiler. then
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:54:48AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> 2) People wanting to install embedded systems. Anyone who has tried
> to run FreeBSD on a system with a small amount of flash storage will
> have encountered the pain of having to use some kind of ad-hoc
> update. Being able to ma
FreeBSD_HEAD_i386 - Build #2900 - Failure:
Build information: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2900/
Full change log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2900/changes
Full build log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_i386/2900/console
Change summaries:
2
On 19 Apr 2016, at 08:44, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>> All this can be done by meta-packages which depend on larger package groups.
> Currently Metapackage is a way to make 10 packages look like 11 packages.
> The framework needs to understand to hide the 10 internal packages if they
> are part
On 19/04/2016 5:29 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Guys please stop arguing about the number of packages. The high
granularity is VERY useful!
it's going to make us a laughing stock
"look FreeBSD just split into 1.43 million packages" (effectively the
same number.. it's bigger than 10)
Managi
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote on 04/19/2016 05:24:
On 2016-04-18 8:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how
having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages
containing packages?
Because honestly I can't see how having granu
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:17:12PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code
> to hide that it's so many packages.
>
> :)
>
> I think the rule of two feet should be applied here.
>
> What we have is people that have worked quite har
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:24:30PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> We've managed to keep this disease out of BSD since I started to do it in
> 1990. First we laughed/fumed at Sun's Solaris when they unbundled the
> compiler. then we fumed at xorg when hey took a useful package and made 190
> odd pa
On 19/04/2016 3:14 AM, Glen Barber wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:01:46PM -0700, Sean Fagan wrote:
On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
I understand, that maybe it is too late, but ARE YOU KIDDING?! 755
packages?! WHY?! What are reasons and goals to split base in such
enormo
> Den 19. apr. 2016 kl. 03.24 skrev Lyndon Nerenberg :
>
> There aren't enough seconds in the universe to test all the viable
> combinations for one single release.
We don't even do that with the WITH_FOO/WITHOUT_FOO options now, so why should
that be a criteria? You can use any combination of
84 matches
Mail list logo
