Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 02:22:56 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Daniel Ortmann <ortmann@sparc.isl.net> Cc: "Juha Saarinen" <juha@saarinen.org>, "'Lane Holcombe'" <laneholc@earthlink.net>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Going STABLE from CURRENT Message-ID: <200109300822.f8U8Mu794382@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "30 Sep 2001 02:33:42 CDT." <86zo7dqgix.fsf@pyrl.eye> References: <86zo7dqgix.fsf@pyrl.eye> <016101c14713$51fdc1e0$0a01a8c0@den2> <200109270524.f8R5OU771580@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <86zo7dqgix.fsf@pyrl.eye> Daniel Ortmann writes: : > Don't let errors bother you and keep going. It is better than -i, : > since it doesn't ignore too many errors :-) : : Ouch. That's dangerous. Yes, I know. :-) However, it isn't as dangerous as you think, because -k will not build those things that depend on things that failed, while -i will try. : Consider what happens when GCC craps out when compiling a little-used : library file. You could end up with garbage linked into your kernel or : applications. Applications only. The kernel build doesn't depend on anything installed. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200109300822.f8U8Mu794382>