On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 11:34:05AM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote: > On Monday, 15th March 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:16:13PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote: > >> The change to 64-bit time is essential, of course, but I don't understand > >> why it has to break backward compatibility. Surely you just allocate a > >> bunch of new system call numbers (for the 64-bit variants) while keeping > >> the old ones (so 32-bit time calls still work) and bump the version > >> number of every library. What else is going on? (I don't have a Sparc > >> or I'd join your experiment.) > > > >No-one donated their time to do it that way. > > I don't think that's relevant. The question is whether it's the right way > to do it or not. If what I've suggested is technically correct (and that's > what I believe) then that's how it should be done. It's absolutely relevant. The way things get done around here is that people donate their time to do them. Complaining that "it wasn't done the right way, but I choose not to help" just irritates people. Kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:47 UTC