From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 13 18:52:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EE216A4CE for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:52:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pit.databus.com (p70-227.acedsl.com [66.114.70.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B4B43D49 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:52:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: from pit.databus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pit.databus.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6DIq0rq074646; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:52:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: (from barney@localhost) by pit.databus.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i6DIq0xd074645; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:52:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:52:00 -0400 From: Barney Wolff To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20040713185200.GA74359@pit.databus.com> References: <20040713182351.GA72492@pit.databus.com> <22138.1089743312@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <22138.1089743312@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.43 cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSUP and 5.2.1 RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:52:01 -0000 On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 08:28:32PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20040713182351.GA72492@pit.databus.com>, Barney Wolff writes: > >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 01:05:45PM -0500, Jason Dusek wrote: > >> > >> I ran make world this morning. I ran make kernel as well, but the kernel is > >> broken, so I kept my old kernel. Does this mean that I have a RELEASE > >> kernel but a CURRENT world? Am I headed for trouble? > > > >To core: > >How many users do we have to sabotage with "make world" before it gets > >removed from the make targets? Is it really that hard in the very rare > >case when "make buildworld && make installworld" is what's wanted to > >type exactly that? > > And your argument here is that people are reciprocally less likely > to hose (or as it may be: not hose) their systems because the have > to type 27 characters more to do so ? Yes. That's why there are safeties on guns. Or, since I'm using US metaphors, "make world" could be considered an attractive nuisance, like an unfenced swimming pool. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.