Running i386 binaries on amd64

[Julian H. Stacey]

> IMHO, that's a very special case. Aside from these kinds of licensing 

Not licensing.

> hurdles you mentioned as a special example, I still think that the 
> security branch should be used. Only very slight changes go to 
> RELENG_6_1 that don't cause functional changes. Using 
> RELENG_6_1_0_RELEASE anyway is like buying a two-day bread instead of 
> the fresh one. The security branch offers the same functionality and 
> *quality* that the original release, so imho the other points you listed 
> make no sense.
> 
> I really don't want to flame about this, but I'm curious what others 
> think about this topic, because I'm very convinced that the use of the 
> release tag is strongly discouraged after the release. If a security 
> hole is recognized why one might not want to patch it?

NO !  The original questioner has read what we're agreed
the tags will deliver.  He's informed, We're Done - Finished !

Expounding what tags all should use, would be arrogance in ignorance:
  Not all systems are trivial, some have Strict code control
  authorisation procedures: eg a warship system that embeds DOS,
  Win-XP & Linux - Shudder!, BSD systems that get used in other
  `interesting' places.  Firewall manufacturers integrating BSD.
  Less stringent applications like banking will also have managers
  who must sign off before _Any_ code change is allowed.

Which CVS tags you urge is Not amd64 specific, so to discuss it,
please on an all architectures list, eg chat@
-- 
Julian Stacey.  Consultant Unix Net & Sys. Eng., Munich.  http://berklix.com