On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:12:27PM -0500, David Scheidt wrote:
> The obvious one-line fix appears to work. My 2.2.6 to RELENG_3 build hasn't
> finished yet, but it makes it past the point where it fails due to
> machine_arch be ing undefined. Do I need to check if 2.2.6 to -CURRENT
> works?
I
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:12:27PM -0500, David Scheidt wrote:
> The obvious one-line fix appears to work. My 2.2.6 to RELENG_3 build hasn't
> finished yet, but it makes it past the point where it fails due to
> machine_arch be ing undefined. Do I need to check if 2.2.6 to -CURRENT
> works?
I
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 08:27:00AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > John Birrell wrote:
> a patch to change one word in /usr/src/usr.bin/make/main.c?! Please take
> a few moments to have a look for "unknown" in that file. Sigh.
>
> If there is someone with a scratc
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 08:27:00AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > John Birrell wrote:
> a patch to change one word in /usr/src/usr.bin/make/main.c?! Please take
> a few moments to have a look for "unknown" in that file. Sigh.
>
> If there is someone with a scrat
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 08:27:00AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > John Birrell wrote:
> > > The solution is to fix `make'. I could commit the fix, but I'm not
> > > in a position to build -stable just now. I'm not supposed to commit
> > > without testing. The fix
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> If there is someone with a scratch disk on which they can install 2.2.8
> (or 2.2.7 or 2.2.6) and do a `make aout-to-elf' and report the results,
> we could get this sorted out. I don't have the hardware to do that
> anymore. Any list-lurkers want to help
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 08:27:00AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> John Birrell wrote:
> > The solution is to fix `make'. I could commit the fix, but I'm not
> > in a position to build -stable just now. I'm not supposed to commit
> > without testing. The fix looks straight forward though, so "it
> > should ju
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 08:27:00AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > John Birrell wrote:
> > > The solution is to fix `make'. I could commit the fix, but I'm not
> > > in a position to build -stable just now. I'm not supposed to commit
> > > without testing. The fix
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> If there is someone with a scratch disk on which they can install 2.2.8
> (or 2.2.7 or 2.2.6) and do a `make aout-to-elf' and report the results,
> we could get this sorted out. I don't have the hardware to do that
> anymore. Any list-lurkers want to help
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 08:27:00AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> John Birrell wrote:
> > The solution is to fix `make'. I could commit the fix, but I'm not
> > in a position to build -stable just now. I'm not supposed to commit
> > without testing. The fix looks straight forward though, so "it
> > should j
John Birrell wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > > `make' has changed.
> >
> > Ok, that's the cause then, so what's the solution? :) And
> > meanwhile is it going to hurt anything if I put a suggestion on my 'make
> > upgrade' web page that users do 'make -DM
John Birrell wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > > `make' has changed.
> >
> > Ok, that's the cause then, so what's the solution? :) And
> > meanwhile is it going to hurt anything if I put a suggestion on my 'make
> > upgrade' web page that users do 'make -D
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > `make' has changed.
>
> Ok, that's the cause then, so what's the solution? :) And
> meanwhile is it going to hurt anything if I put a suggestion on my 'make
> upgrade' web page that users do 'make -DMACHINE_ARCH=i386 upgrade' as a
> t
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > `make' has changed.
>
> Ok, that's the cause then, so what's the solution? :) And
> meanwhile is it going to hurt anything if I put a suggestion on my 'make
> upgrade' web page that users do 'make -DMACHINE_ARCH=i386 upgrade' as a
>
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 09:13:58AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > I've seen quite a few reports of this lately, and while this fixes it,
> > it
> > shouldn't be necessary, should it? Has something changed in the 'make
> > upgrade' target recently?
>
> `mak
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, John Birrell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 09:13:58AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > I've seen quite a few reports of this lately, and while this fixes it, it
> > shouldn't be necessary, should it? Has something changed in the 'make
> > upgrade' target recently?
>
> `make' h
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 09:13:58AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> I've seen quite a few reports of this lately, and while this fixes it,
> it
> shouldn't be necessary, should it? Has something changed in the 'make
> upgrade' target recently?
`make' has changed.
--
John Birrell - j...@cimlogic.com.
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 09:13:58AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> I've seen quite a few reports of this lately, and while this fixes it, it
> shouldn't be necessary, should it? Has something changed in the 'make
> upgrade' target recently?
`make' has changed.
--
John Birrell - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [
I've seen quite a few reports of this lately, and while this fixes it,
it
shouldn't be necessary, should it? Has something changed in the 'make
upgrade' target recently?
Doug
"Andy V. Oleynik" wrote:
>
> Crist, I had latly same sort of things.
> Fix is to define in ur /etc/make.conf MA
I've seen quite a few reports of this lately, and while this fixes it, it
shouldn't be necessary, should it? Has something changed in the 'make
upgrade' target recently?
Doug
"Andy V. Oleynik" wrote:
>
> Crist, I had latly same sort of things.
> Fix is to define in ur /etc/make.conf MA
20 matches
Mail list logo
