Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

It would be nice if "cd /usr/src/lib/liblzma && make && make install" just worked on an existing system that didn't already have /usr/include/lzma, but I can't find anything in the standard BSD makefiles to support this. I think you can use: make hierarchy to ensure that all the directories are

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2010-05-24 18:15, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> No worries. Here's what I did to actually reproduce the issue (just to >> provide more data): >> >> - Install 8.0-RELEASE amd64 with minimal from sysinstall. >> - pkg_add -r subversion vim-lite

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On 2010-05-24 18:15, Garrett Cooper wrote: > No worries. Here's what I did to actually reproduce the issue (just to > provide more data): > > - Install 8.0-RELEASE amd64 with minimal from sysinstall. > - pkg_add -r subversion vim-lite > - cd /usr/src && svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/head . J

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On May 24, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 03:47:44AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> FreeBSD testbox.home.lan 8.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE #0: Sat Nov 21 >> 15:02:08 UTC 2009 r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC >> amd64 >> >> csup'd f

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 03:47:44AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > FreeBSD testbox.home.lan 8.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE #0: Sat Nov 21 > 15:02:08 UTC 2009 r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC > amd64 > > csup'd from cvsup10.freebsd.org, RELENG_8 of course. make -j2 > bui

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:32:02AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:29:46AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > No. I'm using svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/8 . I'm just saying > > that hopping from 8.0-RELEASE to 8-STABLE has potential issues that > > need to be explored

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:29:46AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Jeremy Chadwick > wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:55:29AM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > >> On 2010/05/24 01:33, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >> > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Xin LI wrote: > >> >> --

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:55:29AM -0700, Xin LI wrote: >> On 2010/05/24 01:33, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Xin LI wrote: >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> >> >> On 2010/05/2

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2010/05/24 02:21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:55:29AM -0700, Xin LI wrote: >> On 2010/05/24 01:33, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Xin LI wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:55:29AM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > On 2010/05/24 01:33, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Xin LI wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >> Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 2010/05/23 23:58, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >>> Hi Martin and Tim, > >>>

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 2010/05/24 01:33, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Xin LI wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2010/05/23 23:58, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> Hi Martin and Tim, >>> I recently wipe

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Xin LI wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2010/05/23 23:58, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>> Hi Martin and Tim, >>>       I recently wiped off my Lenovo again to get a fresh inst

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:58:56PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>       I recently wiped off my Lenovo again to get a fresh install of >>       FreeBSD on it, and started out at 8.0-RELEASE (it's the media >>       that I had on hand at t

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Xin LI wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2010/05/23 23:58, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Hi Martin and Tim, >>       I recently wiped off my Lenovo again to get a fresh install of FreeBSD >> on it, and started out at 8.0-RELEASE (it's t

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:58:56PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > I recently wiped off my Lenovo again to get a fresh install of > FreeBSD on it, and started out at 8.0-RELEASE (it's the media > that I had on hand at the time). Upgrading to 8-STABLE appears > to be problemat

Re: lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2010/05/23 23:58, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Hi Martin and Tim, > I recently wiped off my Lenovo again to get a fresh install of FreeBSD > on it, and started out at 8.0-RELEASE (it's the media that I had on hand at > the time). Upgrading to 8

lzma support in `stable' has potential issues

Hi Martin and Tim, I recently wiped off my Lenovo again to get a fresh install of FreeBSD on it, and started out at 8.0-RELEASE (it's the media that I had on hand at the time). Upgrading to 8-STABLE appears to be problematic though. On a few different occasions I ran into issues d