From owner-cvs-usrsbin Sun Jun 7 09:22:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from daemon@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA23989 for cvs-usrsbin-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 09:22:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-usrsbin) 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 JAA23769; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 09:21:20 -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 QAA10771; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 16:21:12 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id SAA16026; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:20:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980607182025.57478@follo.net> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:20:25 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Peter Hawkins , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-usrsbin@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/config mkmakefile.c References: <199806071338.GAA03403@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199806071338.GAA03403@freefall.freebsd.org>; from Peter Hawkins on Sun, Jun 07, 1998 at 06:38:18AM -0700 Sender: owner-cvs-usrsbin@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jun 07, 1998 at 06:38:18AM -0700, Peter Hawkins wrote: > thepish 1998/06/07 06:38:18 PDT > > Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_2_2) > usr.sbin/config mkmakefile.c > Log: > PR: bin/5730 > Submitted by: James Raynard james@jraynard.demon.co.uk > Make config's invalid option warning messages more informative. Corrected by > adding the improved error report from -current. Thanks! This change is wrong, and should be backed out. The change you've merged (from rev 1.26) was one of mine, and was done because unknown options aren't used on purpose in -current anymore - all the 'known options' (the ones that are used in GENERIC and LINT) are now new-style, so they're known to config, too. The cleanup has not been done in -stable, so this change is not appropriate there. Merging the cleanup is not easy; a straight merge is unlikely to be correct, and repeating large amounts of cleanup in the 2.2 branch is not exactly my idea of a good time. Eivind.