Re: One more typo in src/release/Makefile, rev 1.612? (w/patch)

2001-04-23 Thread John Baldwin
On 22-Apr-01 David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 08:10:39PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: Also, Bruce's fix is not entirely correct as it breaks for the non-debug kernel case, but I've already sent you a mail about that, just to let everyone know that it should be fixed shortly. :)

Re: One more typo in src/release/Makefile, rev 1.612? (w/patch)

2001-04-22 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 08:10:39PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: Also, Bruce's fix is not entirely correct as it breaks for the non-debug kernel case, but I've already sent you a mail about that, just to let everyone know that it should be fixed shortly. :) I commited your "fix" for it. IMHO,

One more typo in src/release/Makefile, rev 1.612? (w/patch)

2001-04-16 Thread Bruce A. Mah
Hi David-- Thanks for fixing the typo in src/release/Makefile. I think however the real cause of the error that people were seeing is a typo on the line above...there should (I think) be a " \" at the end of the previous line. So what happens is that the "make kernel-reinstall-debug" gets run

Re: One more typo in src/release/Makefile, rev 1.612? (w/patch)

2001-04-16 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:53:43AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote: Thanks for fixing the typo in src/release/Makefile. I think however the real cause of the error that people were seeing is a typo on the line Damnit, I *tested* this and things landed in the right place. Grrr... Ok, no more

Re: One more typo in src/release/Makefile, rev 1.612? (w/patch)

2001-04-16 Thread John Baldwin
On 16-Apr-01 David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:53:43AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote: Thanks for fixing the typo in src/release/Makefile. I think however the real cause of the error that people were seeing is a typo on the line Damnit, I *tested* this and things landed in the

Re: One more typo in src/release/Makefile, rev 1.612? (w/patch)

2001-04-16 Thread John Baldwin
On 17-Apr-01 Bruce A. Mah wrote: If memory serves me right, John Baldwin wrote: Also, Bruce's fix is not entirely correct as it breaks for the non-debug kern el case, Hmmm? I didn't know there was a choice on debug/non-debug kernels during a "make release", but I defer to the