Hi,
there is a wrong year in doc/CHANGES.
Regards,
Geoff
Index: doc/CHANGES
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/src/doc/CHANGES,v
retrieving revision 1.2587
diff -u -r1.2587 CHANGES
--- doc/CHANGES 2 Oct 2019 11:18:55 - 1.2587
+++
The NetBSD-current/i386 build is working again.
The following commits were made between the last failed build and the
successful build:
2019.10.03.01.15.19 sevan src/usr.bin/nc/netcat.c,v 1.6
2019.10.03.01.34.31 mrg src/etc/mtree/NetBSD.dist.base,v 1.203
Log files can be found at:
This is an automatically generated notice of a NetBSD-current/i386
build failure.
The failure occurred on babylon5.netbsd.org, a NetBSD/amd64 host,
using sources from CVS date 2019.10.03.00.59.50.
An extract from the build.sh output follows:
=== Removing obsolete files ===
i think we're missing -m evbarm -a earmv4 builds, which should
create an evbarm set targetting our speical eabi on armv4, and
that "normal" earm builds should elide them. shouldn't be too
hard, we already collect them eg, into $EVBARM_BOARDS.armv4.
thanks for pointing that out!
.mrg.
> >netbsd 9 will ship without any targets with oabi as the
> >default, and most of the existing ports were already
> >switched to eabi (epoc32 and acorn32 only.)
> >
> >as part of this, i'm going to stop providing the ability
> >to build any arm with oabi -- turn off the MKCOMPAT for
> >all arm
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019, John D. Baker wrote:
> A non-update build of amd64 is underway
> but has not reached the "checkflist" stage yet.
And it has just passed the "checkflist" stage. In case anyone runs into
this as well, a clean (non-update) build appears to put it right again.
--
|/"\ John D.
matthew green wrote:
>netbsd 9 will ship without any targets with oabi as the
>default, and most of the existing ports were already
>switched to eabi (epoc32 and acorn32 only.)
>
>as part of this, i'm going to stop providing the ability
>to build any arm with oabi -- turn off the MKCOMPAT for
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:31:32AM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote:
> I had to change a lot of installers and images in distrib/, I hope I
> didn't miss one. Let me know if one doesn't install /rescue now.
Nice. Is it possible to push it into netbsd-9?
--
Piotr 'aniou' Meyer
Hi folks,
I've split out /rescue into its own set.
This is intended to make updates safer. It's not necessary to update it
at all, and if something goes wrong in your update, you can boot
/rescue/init and recover, as described here:
https://www.netbsd.org/docs/current/#recovering-via-rescue
I
