Re: /rescue

2003-01-23 Thread Tim Kientzle
M. Warner Losh wrote: I'm curious why you did things this way, rather then with .PATH in the makefile? *** /dev/null Wed Jan 8 20:22:00 2003 --- rescue/librescue/exec.c Mon Dec 9 21:56:20 2002 *** *** 0 --- 1 + #include "../../lib/libc/gen/exec.c" Yep, .PATH does simpl

Re: /rescue

2003-01-15 Thread Tim Kientzle
.PATH?? Hmmm... I must have missed that one. I'll take a look; maybe it will simplify some things. Thanks for the pointer. Tim M. Warner Losh wrote: I'm curious why you did things this way, rather then with .PATH in the makefile? Warner *** /dev/null Wed Jan 8 20:22:00 2003 --- rescue/lib

Re: /rescue

2003-01-14 Thread M. Warner Losh
I'm curious why you did things this way, rather then with .PATH in the makefile? Warner *** /dev/null Wed Jan 8 20:22:00 2003 --- rescue/librescue/exec.c Mon Dec 9 21:56:20 2002 *** *** 0 --- 1 + #include "../../lib/libc/gen/exec.c" *** /dev/null Wed Jan 8 20:22:

Re: /rescue

2003-01-14 Thread Matthew N. Dodd
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Tim Kientzle wrote: > For those who missed some earlier threads, this > is a step towards a fully dynamic FreeBSD. > The next step is to create /lib and move certain > critical shared libs there, then /bin and /sbin > can be switched to fully dynamic linking. The next logical