Subject: Re: another 1.1 to 1.1B (i386) upgrade report...
To: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@UX2.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 03/26/1996 21:50:15
[ On Tue, March 26, 1996 at 18:56:01 (-0500), Chris G. Demetriou wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: another 1.1 to 1.1B (i386) upgrade report...
>[re: 'make build']
> In other words, given all possible choices, i'd rather have it ripped
> out than 'improved' to do something that it shouldn't be used to do.
Do you have any alternate suggestions as to where/how a source upgrade
procedure might be encoded? Is not a dependency maintenance tool one of
the better implementation environments for such a task?
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>