From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 30 00:32:06 2003 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 7CD6037B401; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cimlogic.com.au (cimlog.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.51.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472F043F3F; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:32:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jb@cimlogic.com.au) Received: from freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au (localhost.cimlogic.com.au [127.0.0.1]) by cimlogic.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6U7Y1h5021668; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:34:01 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from jb@cimlogic.com.au) Received: (from jb@localhost) by freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6U7Y1TO021667; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:34:01 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:34:01 +1000 From: John Birrell To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20030730173400.H18842@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> References: <20030730113026.B18842@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <20030730021209.0461F2A7EA@canning.wemm.org> <20030730072442.GA37041@sunbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030730072442.GA37041@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:24:42AM +0300 cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Who is responsible for the install check goo in Makefile.inc1 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: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:32:06 -0000 On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:24:42AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > I'm regularly upgrading 4.0-RELEASE to 5.x-CURRENT to check that > the upgrade path wasn't broken, and this check comes very handy. > I wouldn't object though if it was done using kern.osreldate. > > I'd happily test any patches in this direction for you, John. Thanks. Since Peter made the change, I'd like to wait for him to comment on the code I sent him that would avoid the core dump. I think that running sh as a final check is valid, but I'd like to see a 'probable' case checked first and an message printed accordingly before making the core dump as a last resort (in favour of shooting the whole foot off - one toe is better than the whole foot!). -- John Birrell