From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Jun  4 04:17:02 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA20850
          for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA20845;
          Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17666;
	Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:16:54 GMT
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id NAA08677;
	Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:16:23 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <19980604131623.26110@follo.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:16:23 +0200
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>,
        "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com>
Cc: gibbs@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Matt Behrens: Re: kernel compile problem
References: <199806040448.WAA03377@pluto.plutotech.com> <20509.896942218@time.cdrom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i
In-Reply-To: <20509.896942218@time.cdrom.com>; from Jordan K. Hubbard on Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:36:58PM -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 11:36:58PM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > I think you're over reacting.  If you don't think so, have a cup of coffee,
> > sit down, and figure out how to fix our config dependency instead of 
> > whining about my particular change.
> 
> Hmph.  OK, Mr. smarty pants, I might just do that. :)

I posted (very preliminary, that is - untested) patches to build the
kernel as part of 'buildworld' to -current three days ago.  This would
solve part of the problem.

We also have changes in -current to make config whine when it need to
be re-compiled - if they're brought to -stable, it should also lower
the support load.

Are -current config required to be able to config -stable, or is this
capability just an accident?  I'm discussing some changes with rkw,
and knowing whether this is an invariant would be very useful :-)

Eivind.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message