From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 12 00:10:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F020C106567D for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:10:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2138FC13 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:10:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1C0A2pE047862 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:10:02 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n1C0A2gw047861; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:10:02 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:10:02 GMT Message-Id: <200902120010.n1C0A2gw047861@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Roy Badami Cc: Subject: Re: misc/131598: freebsd-update doesn't interact well with custom kernels X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Roy Badami List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:10:03 -0000 The following reply was made to PR misc/131598; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Roy Badami To: Manolis Kiagias Cc: Roy Badami , freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/131598: freebsd-update doesn't interact well with custom kernels Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:04 +0000 The new handbook documentation looks good - and sorry for having missed it. Has the message given by freebsd-update when running a custom kernel been changed to correspond to this new guidance? If so, I agree the problem I experienced is largely solved. I'd still like to ask the question as to whether it would be more appropriate for the kernel sources to be updated along with the kernel - rather than along with userland. If nothing else it feels like it's the consistent thing to do. It would also give more options where the procedure described in the handbook is difficult or inconvenient (because the GENERIC kernel can't boot the hardware - not my situation I hasten to add). I can't see the disadvantage - and it would seem a more logical procedure, too - to build the kernel before updating the userland - or are there issues with using the wrong toolchain version? (Hmm, what does "make buildkernel" use, then - it uses the toolchain from the current installed world, right?, so this procedure should be safe?) Assuming the message has been corrected, feel free to change this PR to a feature request, priority low. Thanks, -roy