From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 24 22:36:25 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317BF1065687 for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 22:36:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2198F8FC14 for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 22:36:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A13446B35; Sat, 24 May 2008 18:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 23:36:24 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: KAYVEN RIESE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080524233543.R9809@fledge.watson.org> References: <20080524213732.J9809@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kldxref oh oh X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 22:36:25 -0000 On Sat, 24 May 2008, KAYVEN RIESE wrote: > On Sat, 24 May 2008, Robert Watson wrote: >> On Fri, 23 May 2008, KAYVEN RIESE wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 May 2008, KAYVEN RIESE wrote: >>> >>> kldxref: file isn't dynamically-linked >>> kldxref: file isn't dynamically-linked >>> kldxref: file isn't dynamically-linked >>> kv_bsd#make kernel >> >>> From the 7.0 errata notes: >> >> [20080307] Source upgrades from FreeBSD 6.X to FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE will >> generate warnings from kldxref(8) during the installkernel step. These >> warnings are harmless and can be ignored. > > Thank you very much for showing me I should have RTFM in a very nice way. No problem :-). This is arguably a bug, and you're not the first person to ask about it, hence its being in the errata. I'd like to see this fixed for 7.1 so people sliding forwards from 6.x to 7.1 don't have the same obvious question. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge