Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 11:26:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-Connect.Net> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, dg@root.com Subject: Re: Make World Explodes Message-ID: <XFMail.970711112629.Shimon@i-Connect.Net> In-Reply-To: <199707110808.RAA23281@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Michael Smith; On 11-Jul-97 you wrote: I alrerady apologized for my ignorance and stupidity. Here I apologize again. I am stupid and ignorant and am really sorry for being so. Really and hoestly. Having said that: > Simon Shapiro stands accused of saying: > > > > You must jump into conclusions :-) > > Not often. I agree. ... > The answer to D. would already be known to you if A. was true, as I > have explained at _least_ twice in public mail on this thread exactly > why this is a one-off gotcha. Bruce has even clarified the situation > with extreme precision in yet another mail. There is no logical way to prove something is not or did not happen. Stating that I do not read mail is impossible for anyone but me. It is like saying ``You did not send me that letter''. Maybe I did but you did not receive it? In our case, maybe I read the mail, did what was suggested and it still did not work? ... > So you have to help it out by presuming your 'install' is up to it and > running the 'make includes' by hand. Like I said, I did all that but it still did not work. Turns out the problem was my blind reliance on CVS and CVSUP to work correctly under all conditions. I run CVSUP under cron few times a day and cvs update on my source tree at least twice a week, with manual runs in between. I run make world once a week, and make release every week or two. The problem was solved here (after much digging (and running make includes three times :-) by; a) removing the entire source tree and checking out from CVS, or b) (as suggested) removingthe sup database and running cvsup again. This produced a clean compile, the world have rarely seen before. I admit, in addition to stupidity, bad habits. Being in the RDBMS world for as many decades as I have been, one grows used to complex processes always ending in a well defined state; a) Failure which means ``no change has been made at all or b) succes, which means ``ALL changes are in place'' I know we do not have that with all the tools we use all the time and know why and do not aruge. But some times, I forget and assume the wrong assumptions. Simon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.970711112629.Shimon>