> Please let serverboot die a silent death, nobody should be using it.
Dead.
> Index: serverboot/ChangeLog
> 2004-09-03 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makefile (target): Variable removed.
That's a silly way to go about it.
___
Bu
> Please let serverboot die a silent death, nobody should be using
> it.
Dead.
Thanks!
> Index: serverboot/ChangeLog
> 2004-09-03 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>* Makefile (target): Variable removed.
That's a silly way to go about it.
Hmph, I thought wha
On 19 Dec 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Corking.
> >
> >What's that mean?
> >
> > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
> >
> > corking
> >adj : (informal) very good; "a bully pulpit"; "a neat sports car";
> > "had a
> corking
>adj : (informal) very good; "a bully pulpit"; "a neat sports car";
> "had a great time at the party"; "you look simply
> smashing" [syn: {bang-up}, {bully}, {cracking}, {dandy},
> {great}, {groovy}, {keen}, {neat}, {nifty},
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Corking.
>
>What's that mean?
>
> >From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
>
> corking
>adj : (informal) very good; "a bully pulpit"; "a neat sports car";
> "had a great time at the party"; "you look simply
> smash
> Corking.
What's that mean?
>From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
corking
adj : (informal) very good; "a bully pulpit"; "a neat sports car";
"had a great time at the party"; "you look simply
smashing" [syn: {bang-up}, {bully}, {cracking}, {dandy},
{g
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Still, is the unused code somehow filtered out from the source tree
>> when a release is made?
>
>See hurd/Makefile.
>
> Corking.
What's that mean?
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTEC
> Still, is the unused code somehow filtered out from the source tree
> when a release is made?
See hurd/Makefile.
Corking.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The problem with having them still in the tree is that it's not obvious
>> at a quick glance which tools are pieces aer still in use and worth
>> learning when you're a new person. As an example, when James Morrison
>> was doing pa
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 09:08:59PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Still, is the unused code somehow filtered out from the source tree
> when a release is made?
With automake yes. 'make dist' only pulls in the files that are
actively referenced in the make files. That is, incidentally, what I'
> The problem with having them still in the tree is that it's not obvious
> at a quick glance which tools are pieces aer still in use and worth
> learning when you're a new person. As an example, when James Morrison
> was doing patch reviews and sending a patch nearly every week a freq
Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem with having them still in the tree is that it's not obvious
> at a quick glance which tools are pieces aer still in use and worth
> learning when you're a new person. As an example, when James Morrison
> was doing patch reviews and sending a p
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:58:53AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >ufs-fsck is fsck for ufs, I belive that bsdfsck is the same thing only
> >rewritten.
> >
> > I mean the other way of course, ufs-fsck is a rewritten version of
> > b
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:58:06AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Also, is there a reason to keep bsdfsck, defpager and libtreefs
> > around? About libtreefs I'm a bit unsure, since it might be useful.
> > But I doubt this since it hasn't been touched since 1996 (there is not
> > even a C
Why do you want to delete things like this?
Because I feel like it.
They are in-progress, it's in the CVS source, which is the right
place for things like that. Of course they are not in the release,
but that's a separate question.
Am I wrong to say that libtreefs is obsolete, dead
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>ufs-fsck is fsck for ufs, I belive that bsdfsck is the same thing only
>rewritten.
>
> I mean the other way of course, ufs-fsck is a rewritten version of
> bsdfsck. Please correct me if this _not_ the case.
You are correct. bsdfsck is the
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, is there a reason to keep bsdfsck, defpager and libtreefs
> around? About libtreefs I'm a bit unsure, since it might be useful.
> But I doubt this since it hasn't been touched since 1996 (there is not
> even a ChangeLog).
Why do you want to
ufs-fsck is fsck for ufs, I belive that bsdfsck is the same thing only
rewritten.
I mean the other way of course, ufs-fsck is a rewritten version of
bsdfsck. Please correct me if this _not_ the case.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
h
Is bsdfsck just fsck for ufs? If yes, it should probably be renamed for
consistency.
ufs-fsck is fsck for ufs, I belive that bsdfsck is the same thing only
rewritten.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listin
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 03:50, M. Gerards wrote:
> > Also, is there a reason to keep bsdfsck, defpager and libtreefs
> > around? About libtreefs I'm a bit unsure, since it might be useful.
> > But I doubt this since it hasn't been touched since 1996 (there is not
> > even a ChangeLog).
Is bsdfsck j
Why do you want to remove bsdfsck?
bsdfsck is duplicate code of ufs-fsck AFAICS.
Can someone please explain what libtreefs does, why it exists and
what is missing? I think most people (including me) don't have an
idea.
It is (was) a library for tree structured translators, it exists
> Also, is there a reason to keep bsdfsck, defpager and libtreefs
> around? About libtreefs I'm a bit unsure, since it might be useful.
> But I doubt this since it hasn't been touched since 1996 (there is not
> even a ChangeLog).
Why do you want to remove bsdfsck? I think it will be used more oft
Convenience for the hackers who really hack is one of the most
persuasive arguments on any subject in the project. GRUB is great
for multiboot support and nothing else is so great. Other things
are better in other ways and not so great for multiboot support.
Can't you pass the module
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Is anyone using serverboot anymore? If not, then it could maybe be
> removed.
FYI, the severboot option was removed from the GRUB floppy image
distributed with the K1 image.
Phil.
--
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New
> Your arument about not removing serverboot is to have only one thing
> to paste? Please, you can do better. If that was the case we could
> skip using the multiboot stuff in grub and use serverboot instead
> since it is less to type or whatever.
Convenience for the hackers who really hack is on
serverboot is still handy if you're not using GRUB, but
e.g. mkmbimage with netboot or mklinuximage or suchlike (to have
only one thing to paste in there).
Your arument about not removing serverboot is to have only one thing
to paste? Please, you can do better. If that was the case we co
> Is anyone using serverboot anymore? If not, then it could maybe be
> removed.
serverboot is still handy if you're not using GRUB, but e.g. mkmbimage with
netboot or mklinuximage or suchlike (to have only one thing to paste in there).
___
Bug-hurd ma
27 matches
Mail list logo
