From owner-freebsd-current Wed Feb 7 15:13:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84C637B6C8 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f17ND0002020; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:13:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:13:00 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Peter Wemm Cc: Leif Neland , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *_ROOT removed Message-ID: <20010207151300.S26076@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <033801c0910d$093451c0$0e00a8c0@neland.dk> <200102071428.f17ESgt64468@mobile.wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102071428.f17ESgt64468@mobile.wemm.org>; from peter@netplex.com.au on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 06:28:42AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Peter Wemm [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. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message