From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 4 05:39:08 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924C616A4CE; Wed, 4 May 2005 05:39:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91DA43D41; Wed, 4 May 2005 05:39:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j445c4Q3091208; Tue, 3 May 2005 23:38:05 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 23:38:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20050503.233855.116351361.imp@bsdimp.com> To: j.unger@addict.de From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20050503222512.GA53874@crow.addict.de> References: <20050503120958.Y42342@eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net> <4277BFD7.2000508@elischer.org> <20050503222512.GA53874@crow.addict.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: den@freebsd.org cc: c0ldbyte@myrealbox.com cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: mergemaster improvement (auto-update for not modified files) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 05:39:08 -0000 In message: <20050503222512.GA53874@crow.addict.de> Juergen Unger writes: : On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:15:51AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: : > c0ldbyte wrote: : [...] : > >But with all due respect, This just seems like another case of a : > >"Bike Shed" incident. : > not at all. : > I've wanted this for a long time.. : > files that I have not touched are at default state and I wnat them to move : > to teh new default state. Files I have touched, I want to look at by hand. : : so do I. And to go a step further: why do we at all have to run : this things in single-user mode ? : Not that I am not aware of the technical reasons for it The technical reasons are very simple. If a new system call is created, and programs use that new system call, then if you do an installworld before you boot the kernel, that can result in binaries not working. This has happened with important ones like /bin/sh in the past. In addition, if you aren't running single user, many different races exist in the installation process that can result in bad behavior. There are also potential problems with symbols in there's a large jump between the revisions being updated. Usually you can get away with it, but if you want to be safe, you must do the install in single user. Usually, however, has lead in the past to problems, which is why the project recommendations are conservative. Warner