From owner-freebsd-current Wed Feb 7 19:55: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43F137B491 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA23654; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:54:20 +1100 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:53:59 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Peter Wemm Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Leif Neland , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *_ROOT removed In-Reply-To: <200102080125.f181PRt70396@mobile.wemm.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > 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. Except the optionality of FFS is broken. Leaving it out gives: ufs_lookup.o: In function `ufs_dirremove': ufs_lookup.o(.text+0x125e): undefined reference to `ffs_snapgone' ufs_lookup.o: In function `ufs_dirrewrite': ufs_lookup.o(.text+0x1349): undefined reference to `ffs_snapgone' ffs_snapgone is in an optional file but is referenced in a standard file. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message