Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:06:35 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: dougb@FreeBSD.org, doc@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, murray.stokely@gmail.com, ru@FreeBSD.org, re@FreeBSD.org, dienst@marcrenearns.de Subject: Re: make buildkernel fails without complete source tree Message-ID: <20070122140635.25a3a6d3.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1169492498.11889.74.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <200701171832.28368.dienst@marcrenearns.de> <474078f80701181348q16ceb16bs40ba45b3d7057b83@mail.gmail.com> <20070121212428.GA47379@rambler-co.ru> <200701221111.56264.jhb@freebsd.org> <1169489832.11889.64.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> <45B506A7.7060909@FreeBSD.org> <1169492498.11889.74.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:01:38 -0500 Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 10:47 -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > Ken Smith wrote: > > > > > I think that's what Ruslan meant by it having "traditionally been > > > standalone". By tradition someone who just extracted the sys stuff > > > wasn't expecting to do 'make buildkernel', they expected to do the > > > 'config, etc'. For example someone who wanted to build custom kernels > > > but had no intention of updating the machine using the source tree, and > > > they knew how to build the kernels manually. > > > > True, but that's not even close to being the majority of FreeBSD > > users. Given that we promote 'make buildkernel' as the "proper" way of > > making a kernel, IMO we need to do what is necessary to make it easy > > for users to do that. > > > > True. I guess this is sort of where I was headed. IMHO we should > either leave it as-is for the traditionalists or we should bite the > bullet and stop providing a separate kernel source tree. As John > pointed out in the message after this one life has moved on and > now /usr/src is teeny compared to the size of disks. Is it worth the > hassle/confusion to provide just kernel source any more? I've been thinking of this, perhaps drastic idea: Don't split the sources up anymore. I'm not sure there is a need to have just this part or that part. Just bundle it all together and ask the user if they want the sources. Perhaps this email is useless without a patch, which I could work on, but not this moment. -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070122140635.25a3a6d3.trhodes>