Subject: Re: Confusing "current" versions of IPF (a.o.?)
To: Frederick Bruckman <fb@enteract.com>
From: Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>
List: port-i386
Date: 05/23/2001 18:04:18
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

# Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:58:05 -0500 (CDT)
# From: Frederick Bruckman <fb@enteract.com>
# To: Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>
# Cc: "T@W" <lsp93@xs4all.nl>, port-i386@netbsd.org
# Subject: Re: Confusing "current" versions of IPF (a.o.?)
#
# On Wed, 23 May 2001, Greywolf wrote:
#
# > On Wed, 23 May 2001, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
# >
# > # > They're advantaged :) because they get a later version (read below).
# > # > And I still feel that both ssh installs should check for other versions
# > # > already installed.
# > #
# > # What's to stop you from using the pkgsrc version?
# >
# > The point is that, ideally, the basesrc version should be up-to-date. :-)
#
# But you don't _really_ want the latest version of everything in
# basesrc, right? Sometimes it's good to give the newest thing a limited
# test in pkgsrc before imposing it on all users (in basesrc).

Um.

Never mind; I thought we were still back at 2.5.1.  We're actually at 2.5.4.

I was not necessarily advocating to advance to 2.9.

# Frederick

				--*greywolf;
--
*BSD: Twice the Bits-Clean of other Leading OSes.