Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:33:33 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make world error in RELENG_2_2 Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970620003333.02736100@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <199706200005.JAA00514@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <3.0.2.32.19970619185234.00a47e10@sentex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:34 AM 6/20/97 +0930, Michael Smith wrote: >Mike Tancsa stands accused of saying: >> Ahhh... so, what is the point of the mailling list then ? Are people only >> supposed to post success stories? > >Nooo, but posting "I have a problem" straight up, and expecting >someone else to do your detective work with no supporting information >is a bit much, you have to admit. What a nice assumption to make... That someone posting to the list ran to the list without even trying to figure it out for themselves... I have been following the major groups since last Sept. 96. Whenever I have posted a question, it has always been _after_ looking through the archives. I search through both the www.freebsd.org, and dejanews.. If I cant find the answer there, or I cant figure it out myself, I will then make a posting... Thanks for the benefit of the doubt eh? > >> I guess the end of May wasnt that time of month for you... There were >> several posts about it in questions. I dont think people are trying to lay >> blame, or even criticize the efforts of the FreeBSD developers... But you >> would call it incompetence, if someone with who started with 2.2.1, >> tracking 2.2-RELENG, who happily does a dozen or so make worlds, then all >> of a sudden gets a build failure is automatically user error ? > >I'll say it again; there are a lot of competent people building the >-stable releases on a daily basis. If something is _really_ busted in >-stable, there will be loud complaints from lots of people about it. >As a less-experienced worlder, best practice is to lurk watching for >these outbursts. When you haven't bheard one for a few days, you can >be sure the tree is stable and buildable. The day I ran into the /usr/include problem, other people made posts reporting the same problem... remember Re: /usr/include/ufs/ffs missing?...Make world failure on 2.2-RELENG Re: Subject: 2.2.1 -> 2.2.2: "make world" fails > >> If its not >> documented anywhere that you have to blow away /usr/include, how are you >> supposed to automatically know that? > >You don't have to blow away /usr/include. I've _never_ had to do >this. Blowing away /usr/include is a drastic solution for someone >that's managed somehow to toast their include tree and isn't capable >of rebuilding it by hand. the -DCLOBBER did the trick for me and was reccomended by a couple of people... >> And, if these lazy ass people who >> have these problems should not post to the mailling list, because it pisses >> people off, what are they to do ? You are only discouraging people from >> using FreeBSD by this elitist attitude. > >*sigh* Look; my point is that as a newcomer to any forum or field, it is >wise to remain quiet and observe the customs and forms of the environment >before leaping in with all feet blazing. I have been reading since last Sept or so... I have made posts on topics that I am reasonably comfortable with to help out where I can and attempt to answer what I know... Like how many questions have there been lately about the login.conf issue... If I didnt see an answer to it yet, I like many other people answered the question... I didnt see anyone else saying in effect 'piss off, you are annoying me with your incompetent questions.' With the make world problems I had, others had the same problems... A few people responded, all was well again, and the knowledge has been saved for posterity in some archive(s)... And if I see a similar question in the future, I will pass on what I have accumulated, as others have passed onto me. >> So why have any documentation at all ? > >Documentation is designed to take someone from a fairly well defined >initial state to some equally well-defined final state. >The >documentation you are proposing would have to deal with the almost >infinite number of possibly confused initial states, and ultimately >there would still be people out of its scope. As I also pointed out, >it would never be maintained (experience speaking), so not only would >it be incomplete, it'd be wrong too. I dont think thats the only definition of what good documentation is about, nor do I think what I was saying is unattainable (and yeah, experience speaking as well...) > >> >Firstly, they don't work. Secondly, they make life less enjoyable for >> >the rest of us. >> >> So dont read the README?!?! Let us who are in the darkness of mediocraty >> and incompetence waste our time as we are spoon fed by documentation.... >> Sheesh! > >You don't understand. You see, someone has to create and maintain >this documentation; _that_ is the "less enjoyable" part. I wasnt suggesting books... The three tips JK suggested, and the note about the -DCLOBBER on the includes could go a long way. ---Mike ********************************************************************** Mike Tancsa (mike@sentex.net) * To do is to be -- Nietzsche Sentex Communications Corp, * To be is to do -- Sartre Cambridge, Ontario * Do be do be do -- Sinatra (http://www.sentex.net/~mdtancsa) *
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.2.32.19970620003333.02736100>