From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Oct 20 16:40:12 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA29000
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp20.portal.net.au [202.12.71.120])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA28821
          for <freebsd-current@freefall.FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA02439;
	Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:02:54 +0930 (CST)
Message-Id: <199710202332.JAA02439@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Wolfgang Helbig <helbig@Informatik.BA-Stuttgart.DE>
cc: freebsd-current@freefall.FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bad system call - world build 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:28:40 +0200."
             <199710202228.AAA27784@rvc1.informatik.ba-stuttgart.de> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:02:50 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > I will more likely follow the advice of your forespeaker, namely
> > > excluding the termcap subdir from the worldbuild.
> > 
> > This is stupid, and fails to address the problem.
> 
> Hmm. As far as I recall, we had some interface change of
> mount(8) in -current about half year ago which made it
> impossible to successfully mount with a new kernel and old userland
> environmemt.

Yup.  And it was announced, and lots of people *obviously* didn't read 
the announcement, and were yelled at, and some of them appear to have 
learned their lesson.  It's a slow process.

> So even if this is a FAQ the answer depends... 

No it _doesn't_.  *This*particular*build*problem* is an FAQ.

> I don't think my suggestion is that stupid.

It's stupid because it a) ignores the published information on the 
problem, b) ignores the nature of the problem, and c) introduces other 
potential problems.

Much easier just to do the right thing to begin with.

mike