Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 12:56:21 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: gibbs@freefall.FreeBSD.org (Justin T. Gibbs) Cc: terry@lambert.org, current@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: config, other kernel build tools Message-ID: <199511091956.MAA01736@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199511092016.MAA04909@aslan.cdrom.com> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at Nov 9, 95 12:16:41 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Anyone else believe config should be in the /usr/src/sys somewhere > >instead of /usr/src/usr.sbin? > > I think it should go away and we're taking steps to make that happen, > so why force the move now? Force? No one is forcing anything... I think the code should be in the right location so I can build a -current kernel on a -stable machine without sacraficing my ability to build a -stable kernel on the same -stable machine. > >As it is, I have to clobber my existing config program to build a > >kernel in an alternate source tree. > > ?? Doesn't that alternate source tree contain an "arch"/conf directory? > The compile area is created relative to that directory. My existing config *program*, not my existing *config*. /usr/sbin/config is *not* created relative to that directory. I *don't* want to toast my existing /usr/sbin/config; I like it, it is my friend, it serves me well. What I'd really like is an incremental step in Richard's planned mega-makefile patch direction. Putting the tools that are only good for building kernels in with the kernel code that is to be built is a good first step. It's not like the boot code, etc. isn't already in the kernel tree and isn't really kernel code proper. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511091956.MAA01736>