the in-tree bootstrap
compiler, and mtime when using an external compiler. The
CCACHE_CPP2 option is used for Clang but not GCC.
END QUOTE
With clang/clang++ 11's change to what -O means, I'm not sure about
the following from man make.conf :
QUOTE from man make.conf
ot@builder-head-amd64:/usr/src # find
> > > > /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr -type f
> > > > /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/sh/mksyntax.o
> > > > /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/sh/mksyntax
> > > > /usr/o
>>>>
>>>> root@builder-head-amd64:/usr/src # find
>>>> /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr -type f
>>>> /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/sh/mksyntax.o
>>>> /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/sh/mksyntax
&g
scue//usr/src/bin/sh/mksyntax.o
> > > /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/sh/mksyntax
> > > /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/sh/mknodes.o
> > > /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/sh/mknodes
> > > /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/res
> On Mar 11, 2017, at 18:27, Lawrence Stewart <lstew...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
…
>> The MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX variable must be set in the environment, not in
>> make.conf or on the make command line (documented in build(7)).
>
> Your assertion seems at od
c/bin/csh/sh.err.h
>> /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/csh/tc.const.h
>> /usr/obj/cust/usr/src/rescue/rescue//usr/src/bin/csh/gethost
>>
>> compared with an obj tree on a different head system:
>>
>> find /usr/obj/usr/src/rescue/rescue/usr/ -type f | wc -l
>&g
__
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd
> .org"
The MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX variable must be set in
Hi all,
I'm unable to complete buildworld with 2 recent svn revs I've tried
(r314838 and r315059). I'm building for a slightly resource constrained
production system so am specifying custom settings and a different obj
tree location so I can copy it to the target system. The error persists
after
Yes I understand it's true there are many options I will test what I can
for my AMD 64 machine since it's a laptop I can probably start making some
reports and also look into ZFS snapshots and tunables. Thank you very much
it was helpful
___
Good morning Roberto,
It depends which architecture are you currently using. Ideally the tests
should be run in each CPU type for each architecture and for each
combination of options in the make.conf, src.conf and src-env.conf. That
could last for ever. Feel free to test whatever you can
Good evening gentlemen or good morning I would like to know what kind of
settings you would like us testers to have in our configuration. For
example I simply establish a CPU type just for basic assembly optimization
but what other settings would you recommend to set so that when we
recompile and
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:20:35 am O. Hartmann wrote:
Today, I realised that the most recent source (r255757) is crashing
very frequent when under load (compiling world).
This pgenomenon is with all FreeBSD CURRENT boxes I updated recently to
r255757 and the kernel I work on at the
(every 1 - 5 minutes after load) having
set WITH_SPP in /etc/make.conf. This is on all systems. Without this
option, the system endures a while, but I can not trigger it by
intention except compiling world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
was available.
However, after a successful build and install, and no following update of the
source tree, an external compiler can be used, because by then, the new headers
will have been installed in /usr/include.
So it appears that specifying an external compiler as CC in /etc/make.conf
For reference, my e-mails related to the build errors were:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-February/039672.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-February/039675.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-February/039857.html
.
So it appears that specifying an external compiler as CC in /etc/make.conf is
not supposed to work in general. Life sux. Is there any intention to remedy
this?
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
hi there,
would it be possible to update the CXXFLAGS example in
share/examples/etc/make.conf?
looking at the gcc(1) man page, -fconserve-space seems to be a bad example.
can somebody thing of a C++ specific option which makes more sense?
or maybe something like -Weffc++? although idealy
Hi,
from r206082 on: $Subject
Make sure to read UPDATING (short: make sure there is no WITH_CTF in
src.conf or make.conf).
Bye,
Alexander.
--
You will save yourself a lot of needless worry if you
don't burn your bridges until you come to them.
http://www.Leidinger.netAlexander
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
from r206082 on: $Subject
Make sure to read UPDATING (short: make sure there is no WITH_CTF in
src.conf or make.conf).
Once any fallout from this has sorted itself out, assuming no serious
objections, and pending appropriate make universe foo
Hi
Any idea why '-C' is hard coded for bsd.lib.mk and bsd.own.mk? I
thought that the make.conf variable was there to allow or disallow
this. The following comes from bsd.lib.mk:
.if defined(LIB) !empty(LIB) !defined(NOINSTALLLIB)
${INSTALL} -C -o ${LIBOWN} -g ${LIBGRP} -m ${LIBMODE
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Ian Freislich wrote:
Hi
Any idea why '-C' is hard coded for bsd.lib.mk and bsd.own.mk? I
thought that the make.conf variable was there to allow or disallow
this. The following comes from bsd.lib.mk:
I'd also like to see this option be a knob, preferably defaulting
Hi,
Had a quick search around mail archives and problem reports. Did spot
anything, but it seems
MASTER_SITE_BACKUP?=
MASTER_SITE_OVERRIDE?=
work in make.conf for 5 however make.conf(5) doesn't seem to mention it?
Is this a feature?
-byron
On 2003.06.23 19:42:25 +0200, Byron Schlemmer wrote:
Had a quick search around mail archives and problem reports. Did spot
anything, but it seems
MASTER_SITE_BACKUP?=
MASTER_SITE_OVERRIDE?=
work in make.conf for 5 however make.conf(5) doesn't seem to mention it?
Is this a feature
I'll look into this ;)
--
Tom Rhodes
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:44:29 +1100 (EST)
Andy Farkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Carl Schmidt wrote:
The following PR has two patches attached which address the lack of
some documentation of make.conf in the manual page. It also
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:09:14 +0200
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On (2002/11/19 15:17), Carl Schmidt wrote:
The following PR has two patches attached which address the lack of
some documentation of make.conf in the manual page. It also
contains a patch for make.conf to fix
patches attached which address the lack
of some documentation of make.conf in the manual page. It also
contains a patch for make.conf to fix style inconsistencies and
two(if I recall correctly) items which are documented in the
manual page but did not exist in the example conf
15:17), Carl Schmidt wrote:
The following PR has two patches attached which address the lack
of some documentation of make.conf in the manual page. It also
contains a patch for make.conf to fix style inconsistencies and
two(if I recall correctly) items which are documented
The following PR has two patches attached which address the lack of some
documentation of make.conf in the manual page. It also contains a patch
for make.conf to fix style inconsistencies and two (if I recall
correctly) items which are documented in the manual page but did not
exist
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 06:21:17AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 10:55:56PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
OTOH, if we go this way we can get rid of ugly ${COPY} completely.
I'd
INSTALL=install -C in /etc/make.conf.
-C is not really like -c. It really means unbreak the default of !-c,
and preserve certain metadata. Preserving the metadata is the main
point of this option, but IIRC it was made as much like -c as possible
just as a first attempt to kill -c
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:28:09PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
ru 2002/07/18 05:54:56 PDT
Modified files:
share/man/man5 make.conf.5
share/examples/etc make.conf
Log:
To force install(1) to always compare
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 03:05:37PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:28:09PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
ru 2002/07/18 05:54:56 PDT
Modified files:
share/man/man5 make.conf.5
share
. It abuses the old
...
Since its first revision (install.1,v 1.7 and install.c,v 1.16 they
were incompatible). Later on, in rev. 1.26, it was made a no-op,
I think this makes -c vs -d moot.
just to support INSTALL=install -C in /etc/make.conf.
-C is not really like -c. It really means
In another thread on mergemaster the subject of the NOPERL
flag for make.conf came up.
The flag NOPERL is added to make.conf automatically by the
script 'use.perl port'.
BUT, note that /usr/src/usr.bin/Makefile looks for the
flag NO_PERL instead of NOPERL, and so that is the reason
mergmaster
On Fri, 10 May 2002 17:46:31 EST, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
sysctl.conf is also missing. If its not there, it doesn't get
parsed. You only need make.conf if you wish to put stuff in there.
same with rc.conf, except everyone puts something in rc.conf
N/m on the sysctl.conf I
Hello,
Is the lack of /etc/defaults/make.conf intentional? an oversite? or perhaps
something that I have messed up on my end?
I have run cvsup/mergemaster (18:30PM EST May 10. 2002), and that
changes nothing. /usr/src/etc/*/* does not contain said file, the only place
it does exist is in /usr
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:37:11PM -0400, Jeff Ito wrote:
Hello,
Is the lack of /etc/defaults/make.conf intentional? an oversite? or perhaps
something that I have messed up on my end?
I have run cvsup/mergemaster (18:30PM EST May 10. 2002), and that
changes nothing. /usr/src/etc/*/* does
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:37:11PM -0400, Jeff Ito wrote:
Hello,
Is the lack of /etc/defaults/make.conf intentional? an oversite? or perhaps
something that I have messed up on my end?
I have run cvsup/mergemaster (18:30PM EST May 10. 2002), and that
changes nothing. /usr/src/etc/*/* does
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 05:40:11PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:37:11PM -0400, Jeff Ito wrote:
Hello,
Is the lack of /etc/defaults/make.conf intentional? an oversite? or perhaps
something that I have messed up on my end?
I have run cvsup/mergemaster
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:26:13PM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote:
Thus spake Vincent Poy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I was looking on the -current tree and don't see make.conf in
either etc or etc/defaults. In previous versions, make.conf is in
etc/defaults and then you can put your own
Thus spake Ruslan Ermilov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
IIRC, it was requested by many that this change be backed out, no?
No, the discussion -arch converted to a discussion about the
implementation of a world.conf file, which implicits this
commit.
Alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Alexander Langer wrote:
Thus spake Vincent Poy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I was looking on the -current tree and don't see make.conf in
either etc or etc/defaults. In previous versions, make.conf is in
etc/defaults and then you can put your own modifications in etc
binaries on your system, you will certainly
want to update /usr/lib/compat/libc.so.4. The easiest way is to
add COMPAT4X= yes in your /etc/make.conf.
Revision ChangesPath
1.36 +2 -2 src/include/stdio.h
I was looking on the -current tree and don't see make.conf
Thus spake Vincent Poy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I was looking on the -current tree and don't see make.conf in
either etc or etc/defaults. In previous versions, make.conf is in
etc/defaults and then you can put your own modifications in etc. So any
chance of bringing back make.conf
Thus spake Leif Neland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why introduce this handling of defaults different of other default
cfg's:
pccard.conf periodic.conf rc.conf
Because these actually _set_ defaults, /etc/defaults/make.conf did
not.
The example file lives in /usr/share/examples/etc/ now
Hi!
/etc/defaults/make.conf has been removed and is not included by
make(1) any more.
If you are using BDEFLAGS, add the entry to your local /etc/make.conf.
The example file lives in /usr/share/examples/etc/ now.
Thank you
Alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
- Original Message -
From: Alexander Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:52 PM
Subject: minor HEADS UP: /etc/defaults/make.conf is gone
Hi!
/etc/defaults/make.conf has been removed and is not included by
make(1) any
I originally sent this to freebsd-stable but didn't get any replies. It
has been reworded.
I ran across this while playing with the INSTALL knob in make.conf. In
almost all of the Makefiles in src/ there is either -C or -c hard coded as
an argument to install. This means that changes you make
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Eric D. Futch wrote:
I originally sent this to freebsd-stable but didn't get any replies. It
has been reworded.
I ran across this while playing with the INSTALL knob in make.conf. In
almost all of the Makefiles in src/ there is either -C or -c hard coded
feels left out. Hehehhe
I made a simple patch to etc/defaults/make.conf
and share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk
Should I have touched anything else?
=20
Regards,
=20
ps: I think this can be MFCed asap (even during the
veil period) since it is very straightforward
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:32:36AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
k6-2 is already over-engineered. The only difference between it and k6
is 3dnow, but neither gcc nor any source files support 3dnow (now :-).
3dnow support exists in several ports, though.
OTOH, k6-3 doesn't add any new features,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:32:36AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
OTOH, bsd.cpu.mk is too under-engineered to support any compiler except
gcc. It unconditionally translates FreeBSD-specific names like k6-2 to
gcc-specific flags like -march=k6.
I'm
Hi,
Is there anything against adding support for
k6-3 to the just added CPUTYPE mechanism? :)
My little machine feels left out. Hehehhe
I made a simple patch to etc/defaults/make.conf
and share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk
Should I have touched anything else?
Regards
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:29:58AM -0300, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
Hi,
Is there anything against adding support for
k6-3 to the just added CPUTYPE mechanism? :)
My little machine feels left out. Hehehhe
I made a simple patch to etc/defaults/make.conf
to the just added CPUTYPE mechanism? :)
My little machine feels left out. Hehehhe
I made a simple patch to etc/defaults/make.conf
and share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk
Should I have touched anything else?
=20
Regards,
=20
ps: I think this can be MFCed asap (even during the
veil
against adding support for
k6-3 to the just added CPUTYPE mechanism? :)
My little machine feels left out. Hehehhe
I made a simple patch to etc/defaults/make.conf
and share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk
Should I have touched anything else?
=20
Regards,
=20
ps: I think this can
Recently, when building a kernel (about 20 minutes as of this email),
I set
NO_MODULES= false
in /etc/make.conf. The modules still weren't built with the kernel.
- Donn
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Donn Miller wrote:
Recently, when building a kernel (about 20 minutes as of this email),
I set
NO_MODULES= false
in /etc/make.conf. The modules still weren't built with the kernel.
The value is normally unimportant, thus NO_MODULES=false ==
NO_MODULES=true == ...
To enable
to
confuse myself last time and made make.conf different to the code. ;-(
Hmm, my box failed with WITH_IDEA=YES and USA_RESIDENT=NO. Do you
have any idea about this?
it seems that parts of the build-system have switched to "MAKE_IDEA" and
some parts still use "WITH_IDEA" ... tr
At Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:18:21 -0700 (PDT),
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be consistant about WITH_ vs MAKE_ flags. We have a precedent of using
MAKE_foo for things like MAKE_KERBEROS etc. Use that. I managed to
confuse myself last time and made make.conf different to the code
* From: Will Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Hi -current and -ports,
*
* I've noticed something that seems to have been broken for a long time.
* In etc/defaults/make.conf we have several MASTER_SITE_* variables which
* reference "%SUBDIR%". However, these variables do not work a
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 12:09:02AM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
Waitaminit. These are correct, please look at bsd.sites.mk. What
makes you think they are not working?
Hmm... weird. I tried using the overrides in make.conf some time ago
and they didn't work and I had to use
Hi -current and -ports,
I've noticed something that seems to have been broken for a long time.
In etc/defaults/make.conf we have several MASTER_SITE_* variables which
reference "%SUBDIR%". However, these variables do not work as expected.
So we must fix this discrepancy with the follo
This can be deleted from "src/etc/defaults/make.conf" now, right? I
can't find any uses of it in the tree.
# To tell the base system that you are using RSAREF (from ports).
# (This needs revisiting) - it is very likely that this is too
# heavily tied to USA_RES
Hi.
I'm testing 2307-SNAP and I found that USA_RESIDENT is set to YES
even if I installed from CD-ROMs with crypto distribution compiled
from international crypto sources.
How about adding something like following patch to sysinstall?
(this patch has not tested yet)
Index: dist.c
That was fixed days ago - get a more recent snap. :)
Hi.
I'm testing 2307-SNAP and I found that USA_RESIDENT is set to YES
even if I installed from CD-ROMs with crypto distribution compiled
from international crypto sources.
How about adding something like following patch to
I use the following:
FETCH_CMD=runsocks ftp -p
in my /etc/make.conf. Too bad ftp and fetch don't have compatible
command lines. I sometimes have to add:
FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=
FETCH_AFTER_ARGS=
to the command line when ports are silly enough to assume too much
about the fetch command
[ Sent to -current and -ports, followups set to -current ]
Here's another trivial patch that people might like to comment on before I
commit it. I'm doing more and more FreeBSD installs recently at various
client sites, and adding "FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=-p" to make.conf is just on
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:15:41 GMT, Nik Clayton wrote:
Here's another trivial patch that people might like to comment on before I
commit it. I'm doing more and more FreeBSD installs recently at various
client sites, and adding "FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=-p" to make.conf is just one
Nik Clayton wrote:
[ Sent to -current and -ports, followups set to -current ]
Here's another trivial patch that people might like to comment on before I
commit it. I'm doing more and more FreeBSD installs recently at various
client sites, and adding "FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=-p" to
and more FreeBSD installs recently at various
* client sites, and adding "FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=-p" to make.conf is just one of
* those standard things you have to do if there's a firewall in place.
*
* Any one got any objection to mentioning that fact, with the included patch?
/etc
I have noticed that /etc/make.conf is missing from the current source
tree and I can not find any mention of its removal anywhere. Where did
it go?
Tom Veldhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Hi,
I have noticed that /etc/make.conf is missing from the current source
tree and I can not find any mention of its removal anywhere. Where did
it go?
See /etc/defaults ;-)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Matthew Dillon wrote:
(Approved by jkh)
/etc/make.conf.local will become /etc/make.conf and /etc/make.conf will
become /etc/defaults/make.conf. This change is long overdue.
The sys.mk adjustment has already been committed. An email has been
sent to the CVS
: sent to the CVS meisters to get /usr/src/etc/make.conf moved.
:
: make will dump out with an appropriate error and instructions if you
: update your source tree and still have an /etc/make.conf.local.
:
: I like this change (kind of) but is it really necessary to cause make
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Doug Barton wrote:
I think it is necessary to make it exit for now, because what we are
really doing is a net-0 gain in files... turning what used to be
functionality in /etc/make.conf.local into /etc/make.conf. The intent is
not to add a third file
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:41:19PM +, Jason C. Wells wrote:
Put me down as wanting two files. An extra file is just more shtuff to
keep track of. I too am iffy on /etc/defaults. If the purpose of defaults
is to keep "standard" things in isolation then lets do that. Begrudgingly,
defaults
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Jason C. Wells wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Doug Barton wrote:
I think it is necessary to make it exit for now, because what we are
really doing is a net-0 gain in files... turning what used to be
functionality in /etc/make.conf.local into /etc/make.conf
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sys.mk adjustment has already been committed. An email has
been sent to the CVS meisters to get /usr/src/etc/make.conf
moved.
Are you sure? I didn't receive anything from you.
John
--
John Polstra
:
:In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
:Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: The sys.mk adjustment has already been committed. An email has
: been sent to the CVS meisters to get /usr/src/etc/make.conf
: moved.
:
:Are you sure? I didn't receive anything from you.
:
:John
: John
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I emailed Peter so as not to create any confusion because he seemed
active at the time, but if either if you could move the file I would
appreciate it!
Good, I've just done it.
Your best bet for CVS requests
(Approved by jkh)
/etc/make.conf.local will become /etc/make.conf and /etc/make.conf will
become /etc/defaults/make.conf. This change is long overdue.
The sys.mk adjustment has already been committed. An email has been
sent to the CVS meisters to get /usr/src/etc/make.conf
ht not be
required by everybody. Sendmail for example is something I don't want
since
I user qmail. However I have to remove it by hand... Other examples are
bind
or perl.
You don't need to install them. Just put these in make.conf.
NO_SENDMAIL= true
NOPERL=true
NOGAMES=
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:55:21 -0400, "Patrick Bihan-Faou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is going in the right direction, but here is a question (and I don't
have the answer). Is it so much more easier to create new compile time
directive than to go the extra step and use packages where they are
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
;-On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:55:21 -0400, "Patrick Bihan-Faou" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
;-
;- This is going in the right direction, but here is a question (and I don't
;- have the answer). Is it so much more easier to create new compile time
;- directive
ing about
"userland" stuff that is included in the distribution but might not be
required by everybody. Sendmail for example is something I don't want since
I user qmail. However I have to remove it by hand... Other examples are bind
or perl.
You don't need to install them
This looks like commit it and see what happens to me.
Nick
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:17:47 -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
I submit that putting "-z" in here is silly, because the sample cvsup
config files turn on compression, and suggest
I submit that putting "-z" in here is silly, because the sample cvsup
config files turn on compression, and suggest commenting it out if you
have a fast link. It seems counterintuitive that one can comment out
the compression in the standard supfiles and then have it enabled by
default with
Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You'll also need the a.out X11 libraries, and last time I tried,
they built OK, but wouldn't work.
They build OK and work fine.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
Hi,
just a couple of questions:
compat22=yes in /etc/make.conf accomplishes a.out support which we need
for netscape support. Correct?
What does compat3x do however? Provide ELF compatibility libraries for
programs written for 3.x?
Also. Suppose I have an ELF CURRENT box that never ran a.out
From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compat22=yes in /etc/make.conf accomplishes a.out support which we need
for netscape support. Correct?
You will also need a.out libraries from XFree86 in order to get Netscape
working.
What does compat3x do however? Provide ELF compatibility
"Scot W. Hetzel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'll also want to use:
make world -DWANT_AOUT=YES
to have the a.out libraries built.
You'll also need the a.out X11 libraries, and last time I tried,
they built OK, but wouldn't work.
Peter
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
92 matches
Mail list logo
