In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, the version I have is out of date. It came from
> cvsup5.freebsd.org over 24 hours after the commit.
Everybody, if you find that a CVSup mirror site is running that far
behind, please drop a note to the site's mainta
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Idea
>Receiver writes:
> : > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Idea Receiver writes:
> : > : i have try to upgrade one of my 4.1 release to -current.
> : > : however, when i try to build the kernel, it failed as following
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: Pointing fingers isn't the difference I was talking about. It's more
: in the attitude after the fact. On FreeBSD, it's "Ok, I fixed
: it." Elsewhere, people apologize for breaking the bulid.
I sent out a message at the time saying I'm sorry for
Warner Losh writes:
> So we're down to stale sources at one of the mirrors, I think. My
> kernel tree here is completely clean and checked out from the my local
> cvs tree. Where do you get your sources from? What revision of
> src/sys/dev/pccard/card_if.m do you have? The following changed f
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Won't the 'cvs diff' command tell you about such things?
>
> No, but "cvs -nq update" will, and it's a lot faster too.
I normally use that, but "cvs status | grep Status" m
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Won't the 'cvs diff' command tell you about such things?
No, but "cvs -nq update" will, and it's a lot faster too.
John
--
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John D. Polstra &
In message <06e001c004fa$39e94d60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Leif Neland" writes:
: What if the machine building snapshots took a note of the time it cvsup'ped.
: Then if the build succeded, it would append this date to a file.
: We could then feed this date to our cvsup, to get a version which at least
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: Hmm - you mean 'cvs diff' can't be pointed at sys to get a list of
: everything you've touched?
No, I mean that I have NEWCARD changes as well, that usually never get
touched. And it is sometimes easy to get things confused.
: I just now grab
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Idea
Receiver writes:
: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Idea
:Receiver writes:
: > : i have try to upgrade one of my 4.1 release to -current.
: > : however, when i try to build the kernel, it failed as following
: > : message.
: >
: > Upgrade your sources and tr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes:
: On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 01:14:09AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
: > : Won't the 'cvs diff' command tell you about such things? If not,
: > : that's yet another argument for ditching cvs in favor of something
: > : without so many flaws (like Pe
Warner Losh writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
> : Warner Losh writes:
> : > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
> : > : The nasty downside of the the module system is that people who don't
> : > : adequately test module code before checking it in will screw
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Idea
>Receiver writes:
> : i have try to upgrade one of my 4.1 release to -current.
> : however, when i try to build the kernel, it failed as following
> : message.
>
> Upgrade your sources and try again.
>
> Warner
c
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 01:14:09AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> : Won't the 'cvs diff' command tell you about such things? If not,
> : that's yet another argument for ditching cvs in favor of something
> : without so many flaws (like Perforce).
>
> Not when the files are in multiple different dire
> I didn't mean to finger you particularly. It's just a bit upsetting to
> realize that I can't remember the last time I managed to do an update
> to -current without some kind of breakage. I realize that -current
> isn't guaranteed to build, but that's a bit ridiculous. I mean - I was
> pleasant
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: Warner Losh writes:
: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: > : The nasty downside of the the module system is that people who don't
: > : adequately test module code before checking it in will screw up kernel
: > : builds for ker
Warner Losh writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
> : The nasty downside of the the module system is that people who don't
> : adequately test module code before checking it in will screw up kernel
> : builds for kernels that don't need that code.
> But I did test it. But I
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Meyer writes:
: The nasty downside of the the module system is that people who don't
: adequately test module code before checking it in will screw up kernel
: builds for kernels that don't need that code.
But I did test it. But I had an uncommitted file on my
Idea Receiver writes:
> i have try to upgrade one of my 4.1 release to -current.
> however, when i try to build the kernel, it failed as following
> message.
The nasty downside of the the module system is that people who don't
adequately test module code before checking it in will screw up kerne
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Idea
Receiver writes:
: i have try to upgrade one of my 4.1 release to -current.
: however, when i try to build the kernel, it failed as following
: message.
Upgrade your sources and try again.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubsc
i have try to upgrade one of my 4.1 release to -current.
however, when i try to build the kernel, it failed as following
message.
please help! thanks in advance
===> oldcard
cc -O -pipe -D_KERNEL -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-
20 matches
Mail list logo
