John Baldwin wrote:
>
> What happened is that binutils was upgraded from 2.9 to 2.10 in both -current
> and -stable, and the old and new binutils weren't compatible. So, you had to
> installworld before building your kernel (which is what I did, and always do in
> fact). However, this made some
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: Nm. I was referring to the original request:
:
: >: >: Could you also make sure it makes it into /etc/defaults/make.conf
: >: >: (KERNEL isn't mentioned there at all) and make.conf(5)?
:
: Which basically says: "this wasn't documented before
On 22-Jan-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>:
>: Erm, if it wasn't documented in the first place, making a change doesn't
>: put the burden of documenting the old behavior on the person making the
>: change.
>
> It was in the handbook, explicitly docum
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: KERNEL is documented in make.conf(5), but not in
: /etc/defaults/make.conf. Since the only thing in the latter that's
: anything other than a comment is BDECFLAGS, I suggested nuking most of
: /etc/defaults/make.conf and putting in a pointer to m
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
:
: On 22-Jan-01 Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: >: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
: >: > It is in the handbook, and has been for some time. I'm reviewing the
: >: > recent KERNEL -> KERNCONF c
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
>
> On 22-Jan-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
> >: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> >: > It is in the handbook, and has been for some time. I'm reviewing the
> >: > recent KERNEL -> KERNCONF changes to ma
On 22-Jan-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
>: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
>: > It is in the handbook, and has been for some time. I'm reviewing the
>: > recent KERNEL -> KERNCONF changes to make sure that they make it into
>: > the handbook pro
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
: > It is in the handbook, and has been for some time. I'm reviewing the
: > recent KERNEL -> KERNCONF changes to make sure that they make it into
: > the handbook properly (I assume there will be a MFC in
Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> It is in the handbook, and has been for some time. I'm reviewing the
> recent KERNEL -> KERNCONF changes to make sure that they make it into
> the handbook properly (I assume there will be a MFC in a few days,
> since putting KERNEL in /etc/make.conf is a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kris Kennaway writes:
: I agree that developers don't need to use buildkernel because we are
: mostly capable of doing the manual workarounds on the rare occasions
: when things need to be done differently. But if you cast your mind
: back to the many dozens of suppo
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:12:44PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> Rarely if ever do you need the new tools. The only cases are for a
> binutils upgrade that is not backwards compatible (such as the 2.9
> -> 2.10 upgrade), or if you need a newer version of config, which
> can be handled by installi
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 22-Jan-01 Donald J . Maddox wrote:
> > Ok, fair enough. I have to confess that my usual procedure remains,
> > as it has been for a long time, like this:
> >
> > 1) rm -r /usr/include; cd /usr/src; make includes
>
> I just do 'make includes' w/o th
Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
> : 2) It hides the output from config(8). config(8) prints out all sorts of
> : useful warnings when options are deprecated, etc., but buildkernel hides th
ese
> : from the user. The problem is that config(8) is by des
"Donald J . Maddox" wrote:
> Ok, fair enough. I have to confess that my usual procedure remains,
> as it has been for a long time, like this:
>
> 1) rm -r /usr/include; cd /usr/src; make includes
>
> This may be controversial, but it has always worked for me, and although
> it's not supposed to
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:35:49PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> I just do 'make includes' w/o the rm of /usr/include when I do this..
>
> I normally do this, FWIW:
>
> 1) make buildworld
> 2) make installworld
> 3) config FOO
> 4) compile kernel FOO
> 5) install kernel FOO
> 6) update /
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: 2) It hides the output from config(8). config(8) prints out all sorts of
: useful warnings when options are deprecated, etc., but buildkernel hides these
: from the user. The problem is that config(8) is by design an interactive tool,
: which
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:35:49PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 22-Jan-01 Donald J . Maddox wrote:
> >
> > 1) rm -r /usr/include; cd /usr/src; make includes
>
> I just do 'make includes' w/o the rm of /usr/include when I do this..
I used to do 'make -DCLOBBER includes' to make sure no old
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Donald J . Maddox" writes:
: way of doing things now. It appears that these pronouncements were
: premature at best.
Actually no. It isn't premature. It is the canonical way. It is how
we've been telling people to build it for at least the past year or
so. Som
On 22-Jan-01 Donald J . Maddox wrote:
> Ok, fair enough. I have to confess that my usual procedure remains,
> as it has been for a long time, like this:
>
> 1) rm -r /usr/include; cd /usr/src; make includes
I just do 'make includes' w/o the rm of /usr/include when I do this..
I normally do t
On 22-Jan-01 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
>> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>> >
>> > d'oh, did it backwards again ... buildkernel then buildworld ... let me go
>> > back and rebuild kernel and see if that is all it was in my case ...
>>
>> Argh! I wish people wo
Ok, fair enough. I have to confess that my usual procedure remains,
as it has been for a long time, like this:
1) rm -r /usr/include; cd /usr/src; make includes
This may be controversial, but it has always worked for me, and although
it's not supposed to (in my understanding), the build (I thin
On 22-Jan-01 John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 22-Jan-01 Donald J . Maddox wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:49:30PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
>>>
>>> Argh! I wish people would stop using buildkernel! :-( It calls config(8)
>>> in such a way that buries the warning messages where people dont see.
>
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > d'oh, did it backwards again ... buildkernel then buildworld ... let me go
> > back and rebuild kernel and see if that is all it was in my case ...
>
> Argh! I wish people would stop using buildkernel! :-( It calls config(
On 22-Jan-01 Donald J . Maddox wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:49:30PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
>>
>> Argh! I wish people would stop using buildkernel! :-( It calls config(8)
>> in such a way that buries the warning messages where people dont see.
>> config(8) is meant to be used interactiv
-On [20010122 07:55], Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>>
>> d'oh, did it backwards again ... buildkernel then buildworld ... let me go
>> back and rebuild kernel and see if that is all it was in my case ...
>
>Argh! I wish people would stop using buildkernel! :-(
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:49:30PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> Argh! I wish people would stop using buildkernel! :-( It calls config(8)
> in such a way that buries the warning messages where people dont see.
> config(8) is meant to be used interactively :-(
Is there another target that will ge
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> d'oh, did it backwards again ... buildkernel then buildworld ... let me go
> back and rebuild kernel and see if that is all it was in my case ...
Argh! I wish people would stop using buildkernel! :-( It calls config(8)
in such a way that buries the warning messages
d'oh, did it backwards again ... buildkernel then buildworld ... let me go
back and rebuild kernel and see if that is all it was in my case ...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > just tried to reboot with a latest build (from this afternoon), and upon
> >
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> just tried to reboot with a latest build (from this afternoon), and upon
> reboot, it gives:
>
> pid 6 (sh), uid 0: exited with signal 8
>
> when /etc/rc tries to run, and, of course, won't let me get to single user
> mode for same reason ...
>
> checked /usr/src/U
just tried to reboot with a latest build (from this afternoon), and upon
reboot, it gives:
pid 6 (sh), uid 0: exited with signal 8
when /etc/rc tries to run, and, of course, won't let me get to single user
mode for same reason ...
checked /usr/src/UPDATING, and nothing in there seems to apply
30 matches
Mail list logo
