On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > >That's the perfect example of how and where not to use
> > > -CURRENT.
> >
> > And your argument could be not to use -STABLE or -RELEASE since
> > both would have the same problems. Like I said bef
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> >That's the perfect example of how and where not to use
> > -CURRENT.
>
> And your argument could be not to use -STABLE or -RELEASE since
> both would have the same problems. Like I said before, it's not which
Quite the reverse. You _shou
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > > Aren't you enough of a FreeBSD sysadmin to know your previous kernel is
> > > available as /kernel.old and that you can specify the kernel used at the
> > > boot prompt?
> >
> > That would work if you
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > Aren't you enough of a FreeBSD sysadmin to know your previous kernel is
> > available as /kernel.old and that you can specify the kernel used at the
> > boot prompt?
>
> That would work if you were sitting in front of the machines. All
> my mach
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Vincent Poy wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I am still running -current. I read the -current mailing
> > list on a more regular basis than most of the people out there.
>
> By what measure? I think you've shown the
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> Yes, I am still running -current. I read the -current mailing
> list on a more regular basis than most of the people out there.
By what measure? I think you've shown the opposite.
> I have always read the -current m
Vincent Poy wrote:
> I have always read the -current mailing list but you have to
> remember that by the time I do the update, the known problem should
> already have been gone.
I assume you have a lousy way of expressing yourself (in this case) and
that you don't actually mean what you
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > I was just worried
> > that rebooting with a new kernel before a world build might actually
> > render the system bootless.
> >
>
> If you're worried, then just
> cp /usr/src/sys/compile/NAME/kernel /kerne
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> I was just worried
> that rebooting with a new kernel before a world build might actually
> render the system bootless.
>
If you're worried, then just
cp /usr/src/sys/compile/NAME/kernel /kernel.new
and reboot, using kernel.new
If it fails, you have
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > Hmmm, I can understand the build/install portion but will it boot
> > since one machine is -CURRENT from 3/99 and the other is 3.3-RELEASE.
>
> Are you still running current, Vince? I thought we established over a
> year a go that -current w
> I think a lot of the people who run older versions of -current, and
> upgrade sporadically, have done so because there are particular things
> missing out of -STABLE that they need (or want).
Which is a fair point, and hopefully we'll be branching 4.0 sooner
this time so the wait is not so long
> Hmmm, I can understand the build/install portion but will it boot
> since one machine is -CURRENT from 3/99 and the other is 3.3-RELEASE.
Are you still running current, Vince? I thought we established over a
year a go that -current was *not* for you since you don't take the
requisite tim
Chris Costello writes:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> >Well, I try to stay up to date but there are times when I am busy
> > so things do get behind... I've ran -current since 1993. There is no
> > real reason to use -STABLE.
>
>Give me one single reason why there is
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> Well, I try to stay up to date but there are times when I am busy
> so things do get behind... I've ran -current since 1993. There is no
> real reason to use -STABLE.
Give me one single reason why there is on real reason to use
-STABLE and I'l
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Will Andrews wrote:
> On 30-Oct-99 Vincent Poy wrote:
> > Hmmm, I can understand the build/install portion but will it boot
> > since one machine is -CURRENT from 3/99 and the other is 3.3-RELEASE.
>
> I highly advise that you read the last month's archive of the -curr
On 30-Oct-99 Vincent Poy wrote:
> Hmmm, I can understand the build/install portion but will it boot
> since one machine is -CURRENT from 3/99 and the other is 3.3-RELEASE.
I highly advise that you read the last month's archive of the -current mailing
list archives: http://docs.FreeBSD.ORG/m
> -I/usr/src/gnu/lib/libgcc/../../../contrib/egcs/gcc -I. -fexceptions
> -DIN_GCC -I/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/usr/include -DL_mulsi3 -o _mulsi3.o
> /usr/src/gnu/lib/libgcc/../../../contrib/egcs/gcc/libgcc1.c
> *** Signal 12
...snip...
> Any ideas?
YES. DELETE, YES DELETE, CURRENT FROM YOUR MACH
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Chris D. Faulhaber wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > /usr/src/gnu/lib/libgcc/../../../contrib/egcs/gcc/libgcc1.c
> > *** Signal 12
> >
>
> Read /usr/src/UPDATING (19990929 entry) and build/install a new kernel
> before making world
Hmmm, I can
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> /usr/src/gnu/lib/libgcc/../../../contrib/egcs/gcc/libgcc1.c
> *** Signal 12
>
Read /usr/src/UPDATING (19990929 entry) and build/install a new kernel
before making world
-
Chris D. Faulhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | All the true gurus I've met never
Sy
echo '#include "i386/att.h"' >> tm.h
echo '#include "i386/freebsd.h"' >> tm.h
echo '#include "i386/perform.h"' >> tm.h
cc -c -O -pipe -I/usr/src/gnu/lib/libgcc/../../../contrib/egcs/gcc/config
-I/usr/src/gnu/lib/libgcc/../../../contrib/egcs/gcc -I. -fexceptions
-DIN_GCC -I/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/usr/
20 matches
Mail list logo
