* Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010207 17:25] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010207 06:29] wrote:
> > > "Leif Neland" wrote:
> > > > While the error-messages are clear, I don't remember seeing any heads-up,
> > > mentioning of this in UPDATING
> > > >
> > > > Or is it just me...?
> > >
> > > No, there wasn't one.. The commit message was pretty clear - You are
> > > reading them, right? We usually do HEAD UP's for stuff that will break
> > > people pretty badly or get them in trouble (eg: an unviable kernel if the
> > > instructions are not followed).
> > >
> > > At least you got the message. buildkernel would have silently ignored this
> > > up until recently.
> > Does this mean that 'FFS' isn't optional anymore? I mean it probably
> > hasn't been (or never was) but the intention was that to build 4.4BSD
> > you needed _either_ UFS or INET, but you could ditch either one and
> > still build a kernel.
> No, FFS_ROOT was unused. We have a generic mountroot mechanism, so we no
> longer needed to compile the "special" FFS-specific version of the code
> into autoconf.c. FFS is still optional. For i386 FFS_ROOT and CD9660_ROOT
> did nothing, and on alpha/ia64 it did something that was more likely to
> cause problems than help.
Sorry, I should have looked at the delta but the cvs message wasn't
included in the gripe. thanks for clearing it up.
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message