From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 1 13:12:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5F037B407 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 13:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF53243FAF for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 13:12:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com) Received: (qmail 87216 invoked by uid 1000); 1 May 2003 20:12:51 -0000 Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:12:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson To: Marcel Moolenaar In-Reply-To: <20030501193258.GB778@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica acconfig.h acenv.hdbxface.cutglobal.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 20:12:52 -0000 On Thu, 1 May 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:35:16PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > Modified files: > > > sys/contrib/dev/acpica acconfig.h acenv.h acfreebsd.h acgcc.h > > > acpi.h acpiosxf.h acpixf.h acutils.h > > > dbcmds.c dbxface.c exfldio.c exsystem.c > > > hwsleep.c psparse.c rscreate.c tbget.c > > > utglobal.c > > > > This hunk looks bogus as it didn't change during the Intel import: > *snip* > > Without this change make kernel-depend of LINT gives a _lot_ of > > warnings. LINT also doesn't compile, but this is at least a > > good first step. > > The question: do people think we should try to get another ACPI > snapshot in (provided we have someone willing to do it) and thus > try to get it fixed the "official" way or are we ok with changing > contrib'd code in this case and revert to the vendor branch when > we do upgrade sometime after 5.1? I've been told that it's not possible to put files back on the vendor branch after 5.0 since it breaks cvs -D. I would have liked to put a lot of the files back on due to the fact that they haven't had local changes for quite a few drops. That being said, I'm willing to spend time fixing the 0228 dist but am not going to have enough time to roll another in May. If someone else would like to take this up, it would be nice. -Nate