Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:13:24 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: dennisg@seanet.com Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD bugs list) Subject: Re: misc/2411: make release fails on 2.2beta Message-ID: <Mutt.19970108101324.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199701080126.RAA01734@freefall.freebsd.org>; from dennisg@seanet.com on Jan 7, 1997 17:26:35 -0800 References: <199701080126.RAA01734@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As dennisg@seanet.com wrote:
> the followng is a snippit from the make file.
>
> .if !defined(RELEASETAG)
> cd ${CHROOTDIR}/usr && rm -rf src && \
> cvs -d ${CVSROOT} co -P src
> this fails with -P no a valid *cvs* option. I don't know why
> because it is a valid co option it's pupose is to prune the tree.
(See also Nate's reply.)
Geeze, it's hard to believe that this piece of code wouldn't work.
Couldn't you have _asked_ first before filing a PR for non-bugs? What
do you think we are using to produce the releases? ``make release''
:)
Get me right: we always prefer a PR over an informal notice to
freebsd-bugs about a problem. I've even started to refile messages
that went to -bugs as PRs, on behalf of the submitter. But, for
things like these, a quick question to something like freebsd-current
first is always appropriate.
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970108101324.j>