Re: Tonight make world failed at isdnmonitor...

1999-05-11 Thread eagle
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Steve Kargl wrote: I sent a patch for this about 8 hours ago. No one seems to read -current. well it still is broken and i must of missed that patch somewhere in my mail, 3:58 a.m east coast time tuesday 11 rob To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org

Re: Tonight make world failed at isdnmonitor...

1999-05-11 Thread eagle
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Hellmuth Michaelis wrote: I sent a patch for this about 8 hours ago. No one seems to read -current. well it still is broken and i must of missed that patch somewhere in my mail, 3:58 a.m east coast time tuesday 11 just read mail, tested Steves fix,

Re: Make World Fails - minor and major conflict

1999-05-11 Thread eagle
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Thomas Dean wrote: I am running -current SMP as of last week. I cvsup'ed last night and started a 'Make -j12 world'. cvsup again that should fix it. if it doesnt add my or anything else for that matter, to all occurances of the variable minor and major in that file.

Re: SPAM

1999-05-10 Thread eagle
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: On Mon, 10 May 1999, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: A spammer could simply become a list member and then SPAM. They won't care if they are removed once they have perpetrated their abuse. The could, but most wouldn't, wouldn't even know how. It

Re: Tonight make world failed at isdnmonitor...

1999-05-10 Thread eagle
On Tue, 11 May 1999, oZZ!!! wrote: Hello! Makeworld failed at isdnmonitor: === usr.sbin/i4b/isdnmonitor cc -Os -pipe -mpentium -DDEBUG -I/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/usr/include -c /usr/src/usr.sbin/i4b/isdn monitor/main.c /usr/src/usr.sbin/i4b/isdnmonitor/main.c:103: `major' redeclared as

Re: does login.conf limitations work ?

1999-04-24 Thread eagle
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Brian Feldman wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Stephane Legrand wrote: Andrzej Bialecki writes: On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Luigi Rizzo wrote: Hi, i was wondering if the limitations that are supposed to be enforced via the login.conf mechanism do

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.

1999-04-09 Thread eagle
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 p...@phoenix.volant.org wrote: I always thought the criteria for inclusion of things into the base system was: 1. Needed for 'make world'; 2. Needed to get a basic functioning server up and running; 3. Something usefull only within FreeBSD (like the kernel

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.

1999-04-09 Thread eagle
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Rod Taylor wrote: Right or wrong, you forgot: 5. BSD tradition. Case 5 justifies Fortran. Me, I'd rather have Fortran as a port. I'd even grudgingly accept fortune as a port, as a matter of fact. Our base system is bloated. While a lot of widely used

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE: g77 in base system.

1999-04-09 Thread eagle
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, eagle wrote: Whelp... I vote to break tradition. Hack away...The installer takes care of alot of stuff like ports installs. Perhaps different standard setups could be configured as ports. Ie. 'bloated setup' would

Re: something's wrong with the in the last 24 hours with the sources

1999-04-07 Thread eagle
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Tomer Weller wrote: doesn't matter how much i attempt to cvsup and make world in the last 24 hours i get this error, this is after i made world while interducing EGCS to FreeBSD, i had to do another make world cuz my C++ compiler couldn't make executables and that

Re: EGCS optimizations

1999-04-06 Thread eagle
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: There is nothing beyond -O2. Well, there's -O3, which tries to inline static functions, but that typically isn't beneficial because it really bloats up the code and subroutine calls on intel

Re: EGCS breaks what(1)

1999-04-06 Thread eagle
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: Alternately, we could jimmy around with the current hack, and prefix it with 4 NULs, and see what happened. Sorry, I haven't tested this idea, as I've not yet made the EGCS jump. egcs aligns long (= about 28 bytes) strings to 32-byte boundaries.

Re: make -jn ?

1999-04-05 Thread eagle
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Bob Bishop wrote: World builds OK here now, kernel, bootblocks and all. Good job! Is `make -jn' safe yet? Could turn these test builds round a lot faster :-) I'm running a test build at -j3 now following the reccomended ncpus +1 formula everything looks great so far.

Re: make -jn ?

1999-04-05 Thread eagle
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, eagle wrote: On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Bob Bishop wrote: World builds OK here now, kernel, bootblocks and all. Good job! Is `make -jn' safe yet? Could turn these test builds round a lot faster :-) I'm running a test build at -j3 now following the reccomended

Re: make -jn ?

1999-04-05 Thread eagle
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, eagle wrote: On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Bob Bishop wrote: World builds OK here now, kernel, bootblocks and all. Good job! Is `make -jn' safe yet? Could turn these test builds round a lot faster :-) I'm running a test build at -j3 now following

MAKEWORLD fails at texinfo

1999-01-15 Thread eagle
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../lib -I../intl -DLOCALEDIR=\/usr/local/share/locale\ -g -O2 -c makeinfo.c makeinfo.c: In function `xrealloc': makeinfo.c:1205: parse error before `void' makeinfo.c:1209: `exit_value' undeclared (first use this function) makeinfo.c:1209: (Each undeclared