Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:25:27 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *_ROOT removed Message-ID: <200102080125.f181PRt70396@mobile.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20010207151300.S26076@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> [010207 06:29] wrote: > > "Leif Neland" wrote: > > > While the error-messages are clear, I don't remember seeing any heads-up, or > > mentioning of this in UPDATING > > > > > > Or is it just me...? > > > > No, there wasn't one.. The commit message was pretty clear - You are > > reading them, right? We usually do HEAD UP's for stuff that will break > > people pretty badly or get them in trouble (eg: an unviable kernel if the > > instructions are not followed). > > > > At least you got the message. buildkernel would have silently ignored this > > up until recently. > > Does this mean that 'FFS' isn't optional anymore? I mean it probably > hasn't been (or never was) but the intention was that to build 4.4BSD > you needed _either_ UFS or INET, but you could ditch either one and > still build a kernel. No, FFS_ROOT was unused. We have a generic mountroot mechanism, so we no longer needed to compile the "special" FFS-specific version of the code into autoconf.c. FFS is still optional. For i386 FFS_ROOT and CD9660_ROOT did nothing, and on alpha/ia64 it did something that was more likely to cause problems than help. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102080125.f181PRt70396>