Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:34:24 -0500 From: "Terry L. Tyson Jr." <ty@tyson.homeunix.org> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: handbook - kernel build question Message-ID: <20040424003424.GA41885@tyson.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <20040423201551.GB51713@gothmog.gr> References: <20040423131549.GA40621@tyson.homeunix.org> <20040423201551.GB51713@gothmog.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [-- Message copied from freebsd-questions to freebsd-doc --] > [-- where it fits the list charter a lot more. --] > > On 2004-04-23 08:15, "Terry L. Tyson Jr." <ty@tyson.homeunix.org> wrote: > > In section 9.3 of the handbook just before the two procedures it lists > > "If you are building a new kernel without updating the source code > > (perhaps just to add a new option, such as IPFIREWALL) you can use > > either procedure." > > > > However, after the two procedures it says "If you have not upgraded > > your source tree in any way (you have not run CVsup, CTM, or used > > anoncvs), then you should use the config, make depend, make, make > > install sequence." which is procedure 1. > > > > This seems contradictory to me. Also, I have not upgraded anything on > > this particular box, used procedure 2 and all seems well. > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:15:51PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > Hi Terry, > > IMHO, the wording could have been less confusing and certainly not > contradictory at all, if the second snippet mentioned had used "could" > instead of "should". > > Would it all look better written as shown below? > > %%% > Index: chapter.sgml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig/chapter.sgml,v > retrieving revision 1.130 > diff -u -r1.130 chapter.sgml > --- chapter.sgml 25 Mar 2004 09:55:18 -0000 1.130 > +++ chapter.sgml 23 Apr 2004 20:06:01 -0000 > @@ -358,9 +358,11 @@ > </indexterm> > > <para>If you have <emphasis>not</emphasis> upgraded your source > - tree in any way (you have not run <application>CVSup</application>, > + tree in any way since the last time you successfully completed > + a <maketarget>buildworld</maketarget>-<maketarget>installworld</maketarget> cycle > + (you have not run <application>CVSup</application>, > <application>CTM</application>, or used > - <application>anoncvs</application>), then you should use the > + <application>anoncvs</application>), then it is safe to use the > <command>config</command>, <maketarget>make depend</maketarget>, > <command>make</command>, <maketarget>make install</maketarget> sequence. > </para> > %%% > > This would render as: > > If you have *not* upgraded your source tree in any way since the > last time you successfully completed an `installworld' (you have > not run CVSup, CTM, or used anoncvs), then it is safe to use the > config, make depend, make, make install sequence. > > Is the (AFAICT intended) meaning clearer this way? > > - Giorgos Giorgos, Yes, that makes much more sence to me. Thanks, -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040424003424.GA41885>