From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 30 5:13:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.scc.nl (node1374.a2000.nl [62.108.19.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB11414F8A for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 05:13:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-current@scc.nl) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.scc.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA78515 for current@FreeBSD.org; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:52:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd-current@scc.nl) Received: from GATEWAY by dwarf.hq.scc.nl with netnews for current@FreeBSD.org (current@FreeBSD.org) To: current@FreeBSD.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:52:11 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <37F34EEB.C0E0401A@scc.nl> Organization: SCC vof Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <37F337CC.5E06911B@scc.nl>, <19990930213314.A80221@gurney.reilly.home> Subject: Re: new sigset_t and upgrading: a proposal Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Andrew Reilly wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 12:13:32PM +0200, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > The problem > > ----------- > > When doing a make world, tools are being built that are used by the > > build process. This is to make sure that the tools are appropriate for > > doing a make world. The problem we now face is that the sigset_t change > > causes this to break. The tools that are being built use new syscalls > > not present in a kernel. Not only that, the new tools expect a different > > sigframe in general. > > As far as I can see, if this is the case, then this is the only > problem. The tools built for a buildworld are tools that have > to run on the _current_ platform, whatever that might be, with > the new platform as a target. Yep. > Therefore, they should be build > against the existing system include files and libraries, and so > should run on the existing system. This requires porting. If it only was that simple... > (b) You build a new kernel before you do the install-world, > reboot, and then installworld. This is the same as building a new kernel before doing make world. > I can't see any bennefit at all to (a), or any problem with (b). (b) is far too complex. > That said, I don't mind your idea of extending the stable > kernel, but that is still really just a sneaky way of getting > the user to build and install a kernel that supports the new API > before they try to installworld. Isn't it? Yep, only "marketed" a bit better :-) -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ The FreeBSD project mailto:marcel@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message