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>