On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 09:51:25AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > David O`Brien's are probably the easiest:
> > If installworld breaks, then do this:
> >
> > make -k installworld
> > make installworld
>
> Sounds like this should be updated to be:
>
>
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 09:51:25AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> David O`Brien's are probably the easiest:
> If installworld breaks, then do this:
>
> make -k installworld
> make installworld
Sounds like this should be updated to be:
make -k -DNOFSCHG installworld
make installworld
--
-
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 09:51:25AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 04-Feb-00 Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > Could you please provide then *right* instructions for UPDATING?
>
> David O`Brien's are probably the easiest:
>
> If installworld breaks, then do this:
>
> make -k installworld
> make inst
On 04-Feb-00 Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Could you please provide then *right* instructions for UPDATING?
David O`Brien's are probably the easiest:
If installworld breaks, then do this:
make -k installworld
make installworld
>> I don't think this needs to be in 4.0. xinstall is *NOT* broken for
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> >An even easier solution would be to get rid of setflags entirely
> >and put it back in the original sources that embedded it.
>
> Umm, that's bascially what Joe's currently proposed patch does.
>
> /me sighs
>
But that would not fix the insta
On 05-Feb-00 Matthew Dillon wrote:
>:This has an easy solution. One, get rid of setflags usage by reverting
>:the Makefiles somewhat. Two, remove setflags from the headers. Three,
>:make libc have an _XXX_setflags and __weak_reference() it to setflags.
>:This won't break anyone, or make apps n
:This has an easy solution. One, get rid of setflags usage by reverting
:the Makefiles somewhat. Two, remove setflags from the headers. Three,
:make libc have an _XXX_setflags and __weak_reference() it to setflags.
:This won't break anyone, or make apps not be able to use [gs]etflags.
:
:Of cou
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> > 2. Right after we resolve this issue, your patch (provided that you
> >fix errors Bruce pointed out), should be committed to make it
> >possible to compile -current xinstall in a host environment, e.g.
> >from 3.x (IMHO, the most important c
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:22:49PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 04-Feb-00 Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:05:01AM +, Josef Karthauser wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:40:34AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Might I advice some more time before we
On 04-Feb-00 Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:05:01AM +, Josef Karthauser wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:40:34AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>> >
>> > > Might I advice some more time before we actually do something?
>> > >
>> > > What's all this rush-it-in before an
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:05:01AM +, Josef Karthauser wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:40:34AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > Might I advice some more time before we actually do something?
> > >
> > > What's all this rush-it-in before anyone can actually fix the larger
> > > prob
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> The patch looks good, but contains style (ordering) bugs :-)
> I can't actually test the patch, but assume that's been done.
It also contains style (syntax) bugs. `extern' declarations of
functions are not KNF. They are only only necessary to suppo
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Josef Karthauser wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:40:34AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > Might I advice some more time before we actually do something?
> > >
> > > What's all this rush-it-in before anyone can actually fix the larger
> > > problem?
> > >
> > I'm p
Josef Karthauser wrote:
> The reason for adopting a fall back solution it that it is not clear that
> setflags/getflags is the best choice of function name for manipulating
> file flags as it's a bit too generic a name. Whilst we're debating
> this point there's no point in having them as librar
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:40:34AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > Might I advice some more time before we actually do something?
> >
> > What's all this rush-it-in before anyone can actually fix the larger
> > problem?
> >
> I'm positive about this as well.
>
The main reason for the backou
15 matches
Mail list logo