"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > The real problem here is that these targets are such monsters
> > that they really can't be cross-targets. The doc stuff is
> > particularly nasty, viben that there are maybe 19 sets of
> > packages that have to be sucked down and installed to make
> > it work, because
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:52:07PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Quite the thread from hell... ;^)...
This is nuthin'. But one reason it continues is...
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Using buildkernel/installkernel is your biggest mistake. It is no secret
> > what I think of those two targets.
>
> I
Quite the thread from hell... ;^)...
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Using buildkernel/installkernel is your biggest mistake. It is no secret
> what I think of those two targets.
I have to agree with this. They are attempts to idiot-proof
something that can't be idiot-proofed, because idiots are so
cunnin
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 04:45:13PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > > "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > > > > This whole argument ignores what the real problem is. The really
> > > >
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 04:45:13PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > > > This whole argument ignores what the real problem is. The really
> > > > correct way to handle this is to u
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > > This whole argument ignores what the real problem is. The really
> > > correct way to handle this is to use the kldxref(8) built in the
> > > 'buildworld' phase. (It's bad for
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > The problem is that the kldxref deserves to get its own tools
> > build, so that there is a version that works against 5.x code
> > that can be built on 4.x (or NetBSD or Linux or Solaris or
> > whatever).
>
> It builds fine on 4.x as long as you use the correct header
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 06:08:40PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > > This came up in the first place because it's a cross-envrionment
> > > issue that needs resolving. The "workaround" exists because the
> > > workaround cops out on the cross-environment part of the proc
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > This came up in the first place because it's a cross-envrionment
> > issue that needs resolving. The "workaround" exists because the
> > workaround cops out on the cross-environment part of the process
> > and spits out the warnming, instead.
>
> An 'installworld' doe
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > This whole argument ignores what the real problem is. The really
> > correct way to handle this is to use the kldxref(8) built in the
> > 'buildworld' phase. (It's bad form to be using any executables from
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> This whole argument ignores what the real problem is. The really
> correct way to handle this is to use the kldxref(8) built in the
> 'buildworld' phase. (It's bad form to be using any executables from
> the base system if we have a full object tree.) Actually using the o
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 12:35:21AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 12:38:24PM +0200, Emiel Kollof wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-03-31 at 09:51, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps if the kernel printf also "ignored" the request to print
> > > the little S.O.B. out, there
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 12:38:24PM +0200, Emiel Kollof wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-03-31 at 09:51, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps if the kernel printf also "ignored" the request to print
> > the little S.O.B. out, there would be less confusion...
>
> I'm still sticking to the idea that one co
Emiel Kollof wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-03-31 at 09:51, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Perhaps if the kernel printf also "ignored" the request to print
> > the little S.O.B. out, there would be less confusion...
>
> I'm still sticking to the idea that one could test for kldxref, and if
> it isn't there, don
On Sun, 2002-03-31 at 09:51, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Perhaps if the kernel printf also "ignored" the request to print
> the little S.O.B. out, there would be less confusion...
I'm still sticking to the idea that one could test for kldxref, and if
it isn't there, don't execute it.
[ -x /usr/sb
Doug White wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, A.Z. wrote:
> > ***Error code 1(ignored)
> Did you miss this part?
>
> Man, this throws everyone off.
>
> The error was IGNORED. THERE IS NO PROBLEM.
Perhaps if the kernel printf also "ignored" the request to print
the little S
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Doug White wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, A.Z. wrote:
> > I am upgrading 4.5 to -current.
> >
> > buildworld went fine,
> > make buildkernel also fine,
> > but make installkernel is giving me an error
> >
> > kldxref/boot/kernel
> > kldxref: No Such Fule or Directory
> >
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, A.Z. wrote:
> I am upgrading 4.5 to -current.
>
> buildworld went fine,
> make buildkernel also fine,
> but make installkernel is giving me an error
>
> kldxref/boot/kernel
> kldxref: No Such Fule or Directory
>
> ***Error code 1(ignored)
Did yo
18 matches
Mail list logo
