--- "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Make sense?
>
> Now it does. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
>
>However, here is probably a better version of your patch, since it
>uses crash_system(). Returning err, causes launch_something () to
>retry start_child as it n
Make sense?
Now it does. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
However, here is probably a better version of your patch, since it
uses crash_system(). Returning err, causes launch_something () to
retry start_child as it needs to and crashes the system if nothing
works.
Does it repo
These patches are unrelated. One has to do with finding the initial
translators: proc, auth; the other, yours, has to do with initialization of
the system: runsystem.
Make sense?
However, here is probably a better version of your patch, since it
uses crash_system(). Returning err, causes lau
>This patch allows the computer to reboot if the user does not enter
>a value for the path to a server.
>
> Didn't I post something similar a while back?
Humm, if you did I did find it in the archives.
Looks like something ate my mail. This is what I posted:
2003-01-10
--- "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This patch allows the computer to reboot if the user does not enter
>a value for the path to a server.
>
> Didn't I post something similar a while back?
Sorry, I did NOT find any similar patches.
=
James Morrison
University of
--- "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This patch allows the computer to reboot if the user does not enter
>a value for the path to a server.
>
> Didn't I post something similar a while back?
Humm, if you did I did find it in the archives.
=
James Morrison
Universit
This patch allows the computer to reboot if the user does not enter
a value for the path to a server.
Didn't I post something similar a while back?
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
