On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 04:55:46AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Roland Smith wrote: > > the current ports tree isn't guaranteed to work on [4.x] either. > > s/isn't guaranteed to/is guaranteed not to/
That's what I thought, but I couldn't quickly locate a reference to that event. I seem to recall a mailing list message to that event, but as I was already running a later version it didn't quite register. In the days before 5.3 or even 6.0 I could understand why people clung to 4.x. But now it seems like inviting trouble. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
pgpOrhjP2tmvn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
