Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-11-02 Thread John Baldwin
On 01-Nov-01 Mike Barcroft wrote: Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote: I *DID* test it with a full `make world'. By chance is this your second `make world' after the change? It seems we are using the host awk instead of the one we built.

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:16:37PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: Can someone revert awk to one that actually works? Why don't we look at fixing the mkioctls script instead?? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:45:58PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:16:37PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: Can someone revert awk to one that actually works? Why don't we look at fixing the mkioctls script instead?? That's fine. But, before pulling the switch on a major

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:56:18PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:45:58PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:16:37PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: Can someone revert awk to one that actually works? Why don't we look at fixing the mkioctls script

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Jos Backus
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:45:58PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: Why don't we look at fixing the mkioctls script instead?? What about this patch? --- mkioctls.orig Wed Oct 31 17:08:33 2001 +++ mkioctlsWed Oct 31 17:13:07 2001 @@ -19,50 +19,48 @@ # Build a list of headers that have

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:14:34PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:45:58PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: Why don't we look at fixing the mkioctls script instead?? What about this patch? It does not work. +cat 'EOT' +/* XXX obnoxious prerequisites. */

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Jos Backus
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 06:12:07PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: It does not work. Bummer. I'll look at it when I get back from dinner. +cat 'EOT' +/* XXX obnoxious prerequisites. */ ^^^ what should this be terminating? Or where is it's terminating

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Doug Barton
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:56:18PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:45:58PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:16:37PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: Can someone revert awk to one that actually works?

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Mike Barcroft
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote: I *DID* test it with a full `make world'. By chance is this your second `make world' after the change? It seems we are using the host awk instead of the one we built. Requiring someone to do two back-to-back

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Jos Backus
(Sigh. In my mkioctls patch I tried to get rid of the need to pass in $ioctl_includes to awk but I can't think of any way to make that work. Oh well. Glad it works now.) -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA _/ _/ _/

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Doug Barton
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Mike Barcroft wrote: Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote: I *DID* test it with a full `make world'. By chance is this your second `make world' after the change? It seems we are using the host awk instead of the one we

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:12:43PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: My only purpose in replying was to state my objection to the sufficency of David's argument. There are a lot of things that aren't required, but are a good idea none the less. All I'll say is just about every large change I

Re: Revert awk to one that works

2001-10-31 Thread Doug Barton
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:12:43PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: My only purpose in replying was to state my objection to the sufficency of David's argument. There are a lot of things that aren't required, but are a good idea none the less. All