-CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread John Indra
Just finished buildworld on recent -CURRENT. installworld target died with this: === gnu/usr.bin/perl/suidperl install -c -s -o root -g wheel -m 511 suidperl /usr/bin /usr/bin/sperl5 - /usr/bin/suidperl /usr/bin/sperl5.6.0 - /usr/bin/suidperl === gnu/usr.bin/perl/library sed: stdout: Bad file

Re: Is -CURRENT in bad shape?

2001-02-12 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:57:49PM +0700, John Indra wrote: BTW, today I saw post from John Baldwin to remove device random from the kernel config. Then, other post replied that this is a good thing, mpg123 playing went a lot better for him, well at least, that's what he said. If this is

Re: HEADS UP: installworld gotchas

2001-02-12 Thread Doug Barton
Peter Wemm wrote: Argh... We are in far worse shape than I thought... It seems that the "temporary" copies of the host tools like install etc are getting clobbered by the non-version-bump of libc. It is sheer luck that only the sed thing died before. It could have been a lot worse.

Re: HEADS UP: installworld gotchas

2001-02-12 Thread Doug Barton
Doug Barton wrote: Peter Wemm wrote: Argh... We are in far worse shape than I thought... It seems that the "temporary" copies of the host tools like install etc are getting clobbered by the non-version-bump of libc. It is sheer luck that only the sed thing died before. It could

My world is totally broken. Request help...

2001-02-12 Thread John Indra
Please help me to overcome this. My world is totally broken. ps and top don't work. fetchmail, and other program seems to lost STDOUT. After failed installworld, I reboot my machine, blew away /usr/obj and make clean in /usr/src. Now when I want to rebuild the world, make just don't want to do

Re: My world is totally broken. Request help...

2001-02-12 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:19:57PM +0700, John Indra wrote: Please help me to overcome this. My world is totally broken. ps and top don't work. fetchmail, and other program seems to lost STDOUT. After failed installworld, I reboot my machine, blew away /usr/obj and make clean in /usr/src. Now

Re: My world is totally broken. Request help...

2001-02-12 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:19:57 +0700, John Indra wrote: Please help me to overcome this. My world is totally broken. ps and top don't work. fetchmail, and other program seems to lost STDOUT. After failed installworld, I reboot my machine, blew away /usr/obj and make clean in /usr/src. Now

Re: My world is totally broken. Request help...

2001-02-12 Thread Andrew Kenneth Milton
+---[ Sheldon Hearn ]-- | | Seriously, now's not the time to run CURRENT "for fun". Well if now isn't when is? It's been pretty boring up until now :-) -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd |

Re: HEADS UP: installworld gotchas

2001-02-12 Thread Thomas David Rivers
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: Matt Dillon wrote: : : This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if you : intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party applicatio n : that uses stdio will break. : :

Lpt driver broken?

2001-02-12 Thread Julian Elischer
I have been trying to talk to a laserprinter but whenever I try cat file /dev/lpt0 the system panics (if the printer is online) Feb 12 02:36:56 jules /boot/kernel/kernel: kernel trap 9 with interrupts disable d Feb 12 02:36:56 jules /boot/kernel/kernel: Feb 12 02:36:56 jules

Re: Lpt driver broken?

2001-02-12 Thread Bernd Walter
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 03:49:04AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: I'm going to try absolutely current now but have seen nothing about such a problem in the last 2 weeks in the lists. Is everyone using ethernet attached printers? This system prints fine for me: FreeBSD cicely8.cicely.de

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, John Indra wrote: Just finished buildworld on recent -CURRENT. installworld target died with this: === gnu/usr.bin/perl/suidperl install -c -s -o root -g wheel -m 511 suidperl /usr/bin /usr/bin/sperl5 - /usr/bin/suidperl /usr/bin/sperl5.6.0 - /usr/bin/suidperl ===

Re: Lpt driver broken?

2001-02-12 Thread Julian Elischer
Julian Elischer wrote: I have been trying to talk to a laserprinter but whenever I try cat file /dev/lpt0 the system panics (if the printer is online) Feb 12 02:36:56 jules /boot/kernel/kernel: kernel trap 9 with interrupts disable d Feb 12 02:36:56 jules /boot/kernel/kernel: Feb 12

Re: HEADS UP Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha trap.c src/sys/dev/acpica/Osd OsdSchedule.c src/sys/i386/i386 genassym.c swtch.s trap.c src/sys/ia64/ia64 trap.c src/sys/kern init_main.c kern_condvar.c kern_idle.c kern_intr.c kern_mib.c kern_mutex.c kern_proc.c ...

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Jake Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I mentioned in the commit message, this changes the size and layout of struct kinfo_proc, so you'll have to recompile libkvm-using programs. I thought the whole point with kinfo_proc was to avoid this kind of situation... DES -- Dag-Erling

ata changes break kernel

2001-02-12 Thread Michael Harnois
../../dev/ata/ata-all.c:96: elements of array `ata_ids' have incomplete type ../../dev/ata/ata-all.c:97: warning: excess elements in struct initializer ../../dev/ata/ata-all.c:97: warning: (near initialization for `ata_ids[0]') ../../dev/ata/ata-all.c:97: warning: excess elements in struct

PCM: Channel dead

2001-02-12 Thread Theo van Klaveren
With a buildworld from two hours ago, i got the following message while playing an MP3: pcm1: play interrupt timeout, channel dead After which the player process hangs. Interrupting (CTRL-C) and restarting the player works. It happened only once so far, so I can't tell much more. -- Theo van

Re: ata changes break kernel

2001-02-12 Thread Soren Schmidt
It seems Michael Harnois wrote: Fixed. -Sren To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Lpt driver broken?

2001-02-12 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On 12 Feb, Julian Elischer wrote: the system panics (if the printer is online) Same here. Feb 12 02:36:56 jules /boot/kernel/kernel: kernel trap 9 with interrupts disable d Feb 12 02:36:56 jules /boot/kernel/kernel: Feb 12 02:36:56 jules /boot/kernel/kernel: Feb 12 02:36:56 jules

Re: HEADS UP Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha trap.c src/sys/dev/acpica/Osd OsdSchedule.c src/sys/i386/i386 genassym.c swtch.s trap.c src/sys/ia64/ia64 trap.c src/sys/kern init_main.c kern_condvar.c kern_idle.c kern_intr.c kern_mib.c kern_mutex.c kern_proc.c ...

2001-02-12 Thread Robert Watson
On 12 Feb 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Jake Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I mentioned in the commit message, this changes the size and layout of struct kinfo_proc, so you'll have to recompile libkvm-using programs. I thought the whole point with kinfo_proc was to avoid

Re: ata changes break kernel

2001-02-12 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On 12 Feb, Michael Harnois wrote: ../../dev/ata/ata-all.c:96: elements of array `ata_ids' have incomplete type [...] Workaround (compile in progress): remove the #if / #endif pair which tests "NISA 0" Bye, Alexander. -- Where do you think you're going today?

Re: Lpt driver broken?

2001-02-12 Thread Alexander N. Kabaev
But I remember some posts about a lpt panic some days ago. I tried to compile a new kernel because I think this is resolved, but I have to solve some problems with my system at the moment. My -CURRENT used to crash every time lpr has been used but the panic went away when John Baldwin

Have you seen these 3 video clips...they're hilarious

2001-02-12 Thread heertinz
> -Original Message- > From: Phil Simms > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2001 4:14 PM > To: Barry Sanders > Cc: Steve Hartman, Rhonda Smalley, Jimmy Ward, Big Dave, Dean Fletcher > Subject: FW: -- 3 New Hilarious Video Clips and some more jokes. > Joke Lovers, >

Kernel panic in irq14: ata0

2001-02-12 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Hi, I'm not sure whether it's related to ata driver, but starting from several days ago (my previous kernel was from 30 January) my kernel panices on every more or less active ad0 usage (for example, dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/null kills it perfectly). The system in question is Toshiba Satellite Pro

Re: Kernel panic in irq14: ata0

2001-02-12 Thread Soren Schmidt
It seems Maxim Sobolev wrote: [Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] Hi, I'm not sure whether it's related to ata driver, but starting from several days ago (my previous kernel was from 30 January) my kernel panices on every more or less active ad0 usage (for example, dd

Re: Kernel panic in irq14: ata0

2001-02-12 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Soren Schmidt wrote: It seems Maxim Sobolev wrote: [Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] Hi, I'm not sure whether it's related to ata driver, but starting from several days ago (my previous kernel was from 30 January) my kernel panices on every more or less active ad0

Re: Lpt driver broken?

2001-02-12 Thread Julian Elischer
"Alexander N. Kabaev" wrote: But I remember some posts about a lpt panic some days ago. I tried to compile a new kernel because I think this is resolved, but I have to solve some problems with my system at the moment. My -CURRENT used to crash every time lpr has been used but the panic

Re: HEADS UP: installworld gotchas

2001-02-12 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:51:29 -0800, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The major number has already been bumped, I thought. If this is true then we've only broken compatibility with older versions of -current after the version number was bumped but before this change, right? However, this

Re: disklabel.c disklabel.8 patch

2001-02-12 Thread Randell Jesup
Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, John W. De Boskey wrote: I've been using the disklabel.c patch which allows easier configuration by being able to specify a new disklabel of the form: I'd like to commit these if no one sees any major problems with them. These

Re: HEADS UP: installworld gotchas

2001-02-12 Thread Manfred Antar
At 11:47 AM 2/12/2001 -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:51:29 -0800, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The major number has already been bumped, I thought. If this is true then we've only broken compatibility with older versions of -current after the version number was

Re: Is -CURRENT in bad shape?

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Indra writes: : Is -CURRENT in bad shape? Yes. Life sucks in current - current upgrade land. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
To be blunt, the FILE * changes go too far, even for -current. Changes of this magnitude require a bump of the major number, even though we've already done that in -current. It breaks nearly everything, including the upgrade path. Alternatively, the locking changes need to be backed out.

Re: od driver for -CURRENT

2001-02-12 Thread Tony Finch
"Justin T. Gibbs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not necessarily sufficient since the media may be changed after open on certain types of devices that don't have a media lock. But don't you risk a panic if you do that? Tony. -- f.a.n.finch[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] THAMES

Re: od driver for -CURRENT

2001-02-12 Thread Justin T. Gibbs
"Justin T. Gibbs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not necessarily sufficient since the media may be changed after open on certain types of devices that don't have a media lock. But don't you risk a panic if you do that? By pulling the media out and flipping off the hardware write protect? Even

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: To be blunt, the FILE * changes go too far, even for -current. Other than having to installworld twice, I've had zero problems. But I don't recompile my applications often, and am probably still running things that depend on libc.so.4. Changes of this

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Eischen writes: : On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: : To be blunt, the FILE * changes go too far, even for -current. : : Other than having to installworld twice, I've had zero problems. : But I don't recompile my applications often, and am probably :

make install perl/library sed stdout error

2001-02-12 Thread Mark Hittinger
Hey this may be a spot where the FILE change is felt - my installworld bombed in the perl/library install with a sed error. I went to usr.bin/sed and did a make install to put in the new sed and then make installworld completed ok. FYI Mark Hittinger Earthlink [EMAIL PROTECTED] To

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Mike Smith
Then wouldn't the "partially applied patch" rule apply? eg, back it out until the issues can be resolved. Breaking the upgrade path isn't acceptible. I have to "me too" this; the change simply isn't OK. There are a variety of ways that we can work around the issue and maintain binary

Re: Is -CURRENT in bad shape?

2001-02-12 Thread The Hermit Hacker
Just upgraded both my kernel, and did a buildworld, both of which are running quite well (CVSup'd as of this afternoon) ... On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Indra writes: : Is -CURRENT in bad shape? Yes. Life sucks in current - current upgrade

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Alex Zepeda
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:19:36PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: Changes of this magnitude require a bump of the major number, even though we've already done that in -current. It breaks nearly everything, including the upgrade path. Alternatively, the locking changes need to be backed out.

Re: Is -CURRENT in bad shape?

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:20:36PM +0700, John Indra wrote: Now I'm in the middle of make -j10 buildworld. Is -CURRENT in bad shape? First thing to do when you're having problems building world is to STOP using -j. If you aren't hitting a race condition, you won't get able to figure out what

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Eischen writes: : On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: : To be blunt, the FILE * changes go too far, even for -current. : : Other than having to installworld twice, I've had zero problems. : But I don't

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Mike Smith
Then wouldn't the "partially applied patch" rule apply? eg, back it out until the issues can be resolved. Breaking the upgrade path isn't acceptible. If you bump the library versions, doesn't that fix the upgrade path? No, because the library version bump has already happened. I

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alternatively, the upgrade path must be fixed. I don't see any way to do that. Everything on your system that isn't statically linked will need to be recompiled unless the libc major number is bumped. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To

just FYI: playing with PnP and device.hints

2001-02-12 Thread Jose M. Alcaide
Hello, I have been playing with PnP and device hints. Using a device.hints with hints for all the drivers, some "PNPxxx can't assing resources" messages showed up at boot. Then I removed hints one by one, until I ended up with these: hint.fd.0.at="fdc0" hint.fd.0.drive="0"

Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Daniel Eischen
Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to review it and verify it works, I'll commit it. Thanks, -- Dan Eischen Index: include/stdio.h

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Alex Zepeda
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE structure. How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they really so

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Eischen writes: : Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio : breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be : able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to : review it and verify it works, I'll commit it.

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:19:36PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: Changes of this magnitude require a bump of the major number, even though we've already done that in -current. It breaks nearly everything, including the upgrade path. How does it break the upgrade path from 4.x to 5.0?? 5.0 has a

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to review it and verify it works, I'll commit it. Please. Let's

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:20:04PM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote: How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they really so precious that they can only be incremented once for a release cycle? Yes. I don't want to be in a position where we wonder what happened to libc.so.5

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "David O'Brien" writes: : On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:19:36PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: : Changes of this magnitude require a bump of the major number, even : though we've already done that in -current. It breaks nearly : everything, including the upgrade path. :

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio : breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be : able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to :

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:42:16PM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote: Yup, I agree here. IMO so many things depend on the stdio bits, that a major number increase would have been desireable. So far, bzip2, pine/pico, GNU make, the GNU i18n stuff, fetchmail all needed to be rebuilt. Bumping the

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd rather see this patch, or something similar, than bump the major version again. We can phase in a better way to obviate the need to do this in the future. Brian Feldman, Peter Wemm, David O'Brien and myself have been discussing possible solutions on

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : I'd rather see this patch, or something similar, than bump the major : version again. We can phase in a better way to obviate the need to do : this in the future. : : Brian Feldman, Peter Wemm,

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:48:33AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Peter will likely commit a patch sometime soon. I am hoping it is posted for discussion to -arch before commit (so we get this right). To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in

Re: HEADS UP: installworld gotchas

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 04:44:21PM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote: This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if you intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party application that uses stdio will break. For -stable this would be true. We've already

Re: HEADS UP: installworld gotchas

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 11:47:04AM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: However, this may turn out to be so painful that we need to bump it again. That is (1) against Handbook documented policy, (2) too hackish (we aren't Linux). To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Daniel Eischen
On 13 Feb 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd rather see this patch, or something similar, than bump the major version again. We can phase in a better way to obviate the need to do this in the future. Brian Feldman, Peter Wemm, David O'Brien and

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there's something better than Daniel's solution that doesn't require a major bump and is compatible with the old libc.so.5 api, then I'm all for that. I'd love to test it out as well if there's any desire for that. Yes, there is. Steal _cookie,

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Alex Zepeda
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to review it and verify it works, I'll commit

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio : breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be : able to test it until at least

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:33:26PM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote: How about this? :^) Because bumping the shared version again needs *DISCUSSING*. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd rather see this patch, or something similar, than bump the major version again. We can phase in a better way to obviate the need to do this in the future. Brian Feldman, Peter Wemm, David O'Brien and myself have been

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 Except that we bump to 500 instead of 6, and back to 5 before -RELEASE. When we've branched RELENG_5, if we need to bump libc's major in 6.0-CURRENT, we bump it to 600, then 601 etc. as many times as we want, and

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : I'd rather see this patch, or something similar, than bump the major : version again. We can phase in a better way to obviate the need to do : this in the future. : :

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Mike Smith
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE structure. How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they really

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:09:19PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: I can deal with /usr/local and /usr/X11R6 recompiles, but when the installworld dies because the dynamic linked copy of /usr/bin/* in /tmp/XXX/* gets the /usr/lib/libc.so.5 clobbered and explodes, leaving a 100% totally screwed up

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I made the mistake of looking at this bikeshed and lost my nerve. The patch I was going to commit was: http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 .. but this *totally* breaks installworld due to *BAD* brokenness in installworld. No, it doesn't,

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 02:14:03AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: No, it doesn't, because you bumped the libc major. Set it to 500 like we discussedm, and commit (or I will, damnit). Uh, NO. It was discussed on IRC, NOT -arch. It needs to go there before doing something like this. --

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 Except that we bump to 500 instead of 6, and back to 5 before -RELEASE. When we've branched RELENG_5, if we need to bump libc's major in 6.0-CURRENT, we bump it to 600, then 601

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Daniel Eischen wrote: Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to review it and verify it works, I'll commit it. Thanks, __BEGIN_DECLS -extern

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Mike Smith wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE structure. How is this more acceptable than bumping the major

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Wemm writes: : Personally, I think we place far too much weight on the major number thing. : I think we should be allowed to bump it when the alternative is 'major pain' : to developers. The more I think about this, the more that I think that you are right. I'd

Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:27:04AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: This is the single most flagrant lack of cooperation I have experienced while working with the FreeBSD Project. I'm truly dumbfounded. It's not a lack of co-operation.. it's a lack of communication. I didn't see an any

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 : : Except that we bump to 500 instead of 6, and back to 5 before : -RELEASE. I don't think this will work. It is hard to downgrade a major number for

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:20:51PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: It avoids the current problem: - RELENG_4 bumped from 3.0 to 4.0 - this forced a premature 4.0-5.0 bump in -current Actually "NO". I bumped libc.so because Garret said he had changes ready for libc, but was waiting for someone to

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I made the mistake of looking at this bikeshed and lost my nerve. The patch I was going to commit was: http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 .. but this *totally* breaks installworld due to *BAD* brokenness in

Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...

2001-02-12 Thread Mike Smith
Mike Smith wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE structure. How is this more acceptable than bumping

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:21:58PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Wemm writes: : Personally, I think we place far too much weight on the major number thing. : I think we should be allowed to bump it when the alternative is 'major pain' : to developers. The

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd like to see a bias against major bumps remain in place, but I think that this change requires one. That is, we still don't generally bump major verions, but are allowed to when the pain is major. We can keep that bias by using temporary three-digit

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Wemm writes: : If we had taken -current to 500, we could go to 501, 502, etc as : required to stop killing our developers, and prior to entering 5.0-BETA we : go back to the next sequentially available major number (be it 5, or 6 : if RELENG_4 bumps again).

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 : : Except that we bump to 500 instead of 6, and back to 5 before : -RELEASE. I don't think this will work. It is hard to

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: Daniel Eischen wrote: Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to review it and verify it works, I'll

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010212 17:28] wrote: Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I made the mistake of looking at this bikeshed and lost my nerve. The patch I was going to commit was: http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 .. but

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:26:06PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: I don't see why we need only an increment of 1. What does this buy us other than a minor warm fuzzy. It is hackish. OpenBSD bumps libc bunchs of times per release cycle (they are up to libc.so.24 if my sources are current).

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: install -c libc.so.5 /usr/lib install -c libc_pic.a /usr/lib /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: undefined symbol __sF in COPY relocation at which point any stdio using dynamic binary is hosed, including the *USELESS* copies in /tmp that installworld stashed

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Wemm writes: : Warner Losh wrote: : significance to the naming at all. The versioning is done at link time : by the libfoo.so - libfoo.so.N symlink. Ah. That's different. If it is that easy, then my objection is withdrawn. I wasted about 3 days trying to

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alfred Perlstein writes: : Er, why isn't /tmp/install.XXX done with static binaries? Because the binaries are host binaries and we have no control over whether they are static or dynmaic. At best we could do is to copy libraries over as well. But I think the major

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:31:53PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Wemm writes: : If we had taken -current to 500, we could go to 501, 502, etc as : required to stop killing our developers, and prior to entering 5.0-BETA we : go back to the next sequentially

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010212 17:35] wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:26:06PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: I don't see why we need only an increment of 1. What does this buy us other than a minor warm fuzzy. It is hackish. OpenBSD bumps libc bunchs of times per release

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: at which point any stdio using dynamic binary is hosed, including the *USELESS* copies in /tmp that installworld stashed away. Is it possible to produce a static executable from a dynamic one, provided the right libs are available? In that case, the initial

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "David O'Brien" writes: : What's wrong with shipping with say libc.so.505 in 5.0 and then say : libc.so.645 in 6.0? : : HACK. I think it is an astheitc issue only. It is not a hack, but how ELF shared libarires work. However, since it is easy to move from 505 -

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alfred Perlstein writes: : Actually going from libc.so.500 to libc.so.{x500} is easy. : Copy libc.so.500 into /usr/lib/compat. When the libc.so link is made to : libc.so.{x500}, that is the lib version number that will get burned into : objects. After the first

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've had problems in the past going backwards on major versions of shared libaries. The major problem is that if I have binaries that refer to libc.so.503, then when the major number is reverted back to 5, it is a nop because ld will use libc.so.503 for

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When we back down to 5, we add magic to the Makefiles to move libc.so.5?? to /usr/lib/compat - that way they're only used when needed at runtime, not for linking new programs. Umm, never mind this gross hack; as Peter pointed out, it's not a

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
"David O'Brien" wrote: Actually going from libc.so.500 to libc.so.{x500} is easy. Copy libc.so.500 into /usr/lib/compat. When the libc.so link is made to libc.so.{x500}, that is the lib version number that will get burned into objects. After the first `make world', rm /usr/lib/libc.so.500.

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : When we back down to 5, we add magic to the Makefiles to move : libc.so.5?? to /usr/lib/compat - that way they're only used when : needed at runtime, not for linking new programs. No need. I misunderstood how ELF libraries work. The

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Jos Backus
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:44:31PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: We could use dates, current time_t, anything. /usr/lib/libc.so.whistler (Sorry, working for MS I couldn't resist :-) -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/"Modularity is not a hack." _/ _/ _/

Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...)

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Wemm
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've had problems in the past going backwards on major versions of shared libaries. The major problem is that if I have binaries that refer to libc.so.503, then when the major number is reverted back to 5, it is a nop

  1   2   >