Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:40:17 +0100 From: Bjarne Wichmann Petersen <mekanix@privat.dk> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net>, Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Dave Tweten <tweten@nas.nasa.gov>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Q: Is 'buildkernel' supposed to work? Was: -STABLE buildkernel broke! (linux module) Message-ID: <20011119203957.DFBB25405.fepE.post.tele.dk@there> In-Reply-To: <20011119120923.Q69555@blossom.cjclark.org> References: <20011118234134.H69555@blossom.cjclark.org> <200111191621.fAJGL7773267@harmony.village.org> <20011119120923.Q69555@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 19 November 2001 21:09, Crist J. Clark wrote: > The only people who should now be having problems with this are those > who "manually" build kernels and don't 'rm -rf /sys/compile/MYKERNEL' > or 'config -r MYKERNEL' regularly. But is the "new" 'make buildkernel KERNCONF=BLABLA' supposed to work? The reason I'm asking is that I used that method for several month until I started having strange problems. I discovered then that /sys/compile/BLABLA hadn't been updated since I started using the "new" way. Compiling the old way, /sys/compile/BLABLA got updated. And recompiling the misbehaving apps (various DVD-players) they began behaving! Is there any reasons why /sys/compile/BLABLA isn't updated with buildkernel? And what is /sys/compile/BLABLA? Is it just for kerneldebugging, or are they the systems includefiles apps are compiled up against? Bjarne To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011119203957.DFBB25405.fepE.post.tele.dk>