On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > Personally, I think the changes should be #ifdef'ed the current
> > > version of GCC; when GCC rev's, hopefully its 64 bit operations
> > > handling will have improved.
> >
> > This would wrong, since ufs2 depends on the changes
Bruce Evans wrote:
> > Personally, I think the changes should be #ifdef'ed the current
> > version of GCC; when GCC rev's, hopefully its 64 bit operations
> > handling will have improved.
>
> This would wrong, since ufs2 depends on the changes to actually work
> for file systems larger than about
From: David Syphers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BOOT2_UFS=UFS1_ONLY works for today's current
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:49:52 -0600
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 23 February 2003 11:10 a
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> David Syphers wrote:
> > Okay, I've verified that the problem is due to rev. 1.39 of
> > /usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs/fs.h. Peter Wemm pointed out that the problem is not the
> > commit, but gcc's bad handling of 64-bit operations. Nonetheless, this commit
> > d
David Syphers wrote:
> Okay, I've verified that the problem is due to rev. 1.39 of
> /usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs/fs.h. Peter Wemm pointed out that the problem is not the
> commit, but gcc's bad handling of 64-bit operations. Nonetheless, this commit
> does break world for a lot of people... is there some
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:49:52PM -0600, David Syphers wrote:
> fails. (Am I correct in assuming a 5.0-R install defaults to UFS2?)
You are not correct. 5.0-R, and infact 5-CURRENT still default to ufs1.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the bo
On Sunday 23 February 2003 11:10 am, Richard Arends wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, David Syphers wrote:
> > I added BOOT2_UFS=UFS2_ONLY to my make.conf, and my buildworld still dies
> > in boot2. I'm trying to upgrade from a Feb. 19 -current (because it's
> > crashing all the time, and I need to ena
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, David Syphers wrote:
David,
> I added BOOT2_UFS=UFS2_ONLY to my make.conf, and my buildworld still dies in
> boot2. I'm trying to upgrade from a Feb. 19 -current (because it's crashing
> all the time, and I need to enable debugging stuff). Is there a fix, or would
> other inf
Thank you for your info., Giorgos.
BOOT2_UFS=UFS1_ONLY in /etc/make.conf made my buildworld OK.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Saturday 22 February 2003 08:55 pm, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> Just in case anyone tries to build today's current and sees
> it fail because of boot2, you can always set BOOT2_UFS=UFS1_ONLY
> or BOOT2_UFS=UFS2_ONLY in your make.conf and rebuild.
I added BOOT2_UFS=UFS2_ONLY to my make.conf, and
keramida> Just in case anyone tries to build today's current and sees
keramida> it fail because of boot2, you can always set BOOT2_UFS=UFS1_ONLY
keramida> or BOOT2_UFS=UFS2_ONLY in your make.conf and rebuild.
It should work, but it can't be used for a release distribution:)
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Mat
Just in case anyone tries to build today's current and sees
it fail because of boot2, you can always set BOOT2_UFS=UFS1_ONLY
or BOOT2_UFS=UFS2_ONLY in your make.conf and rebuild.
Note that you should have at least one alternative boot method
(floppy or CDROM) if you happen to accidentally use UFS1
12 matches
Mail list logo
