From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 24 20:56:42 2005 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 93CBC16A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:56:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E42443D46 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:56:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 25551 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2005 20:56:41 -0000 Received: from server.baldwin.cx ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 24 Mar 2005 20:56:37 -0000 Received: from [10.50.41.231] (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2OKuAVA071806; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:56:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:44:51 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20050317164859.4476A5D08@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: <20050317164859.4476A5D08@ptavv.es.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200503241544.51914.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Jiawei Ye cc: Jeff Smick Subject: Re: ATAPICAM Problem 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: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:56:42 -0000 On Thursday 17 March 2005 11:48 am, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:45:39 +0800 > > From: Jiawei Ye > > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:32:46 -0600, Jon Noack wrote: > > > The handbook is a bit confusing on this. It calls the config(8) kernel > > > build the "traditional way" and 'make buildkernel' the "new way". If I > > > am a new user and don't want to stray far from the norm, wouldn't I > > > pick the "traditional way"? Shouldn't we make it more clear the "new > > > way" is the "recommended and officially sanctioned way"? > > > > > > Jon > > > > My suggestion would be > > s/traditional/deprecated > > s/new/standard > > > > $.2 > > Since there is still one case where the "traditional" method needs to be > used, I don't think is should/can be deprecated. Instead I think the > "new" method should be described as simply the method to use if full > sources are present and that the "traditional" method is the method to > use if full sources are not available. The terms "new " and "traditional > should be deleted and the order reversed since most people do keep the > full sources these days. Note that many developers tend to only use the config / make depend / make method as it is more natural if you are working on the kernel. make buildkernel is better suited for users on non-development machines however. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org