Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:48:52 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: "Donald J . Maddox" <dmaddox@sc.rr.com>, Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>, dan@langille.org, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: too much confusion over kernel building Message-ID: <20010118084852.A46924@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <20010118094123.B6927@rapier.smartspace.co.za>; from nbm@mithrandr.moria.org on Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:41:23AM %2B0200 References: <dan@langille.org> <20010118071534.031B13E02@bazooka.unixfreak.org> <20010118022343.A7286@cae88-102-101.sc.rr.com> <20010118094123.B6927@rapier.smartspace.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:41:23AM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > On Thu 2001-01-18 (02:23), Donald J . Maddox wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:15:28PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote: > > > > Over the past few weeks and months, I've seen far too many people > > > > using "make buildkernel KERNEL=MYKERNEL" when they should have > > > > used "config MYKERNEL". > > > > > > I'm not quite sure we should be advocating using the older, `config > > > MYKERN` method. It doesn't really have any advantages over the newer > > > one, and suggesting different ones for different purposes will only > > > confuse the novices, IMO. Plus, `make buildkernel KERNEL=MYKERNEL` is > > > quite a bit simpler than, > > > > > > config MYKERNEL && cd ../../compile/MYKERNEL && make depend && make > > > > > > So, my question is, why use the older one? I can understand why > > > people still use it because they've been doing it that way for the > > > last X years, but that's no reason to teach it to new people. > > > > It seems to me that most of the confused are usually just trying to > > recompile a custom kernel to add, for example, sound support. It's > > ridiculous to make these people do a full world build just to be able > > to hear sound from their soundcard. Obviously, if you have updated > > your source tree from, it's very dangerous NOT to do the buildworld - > > buildkernel - installkernel - installworld dance. But it's silly to > > advocate that someone who just installed 4.2, and simply wants to hear > > an MP3 must do a full buildworld... Just my $0.02. > > Who exactly is advocating a full buildworld? The "new" style should not > require a full buildworld. If it doesn't work, it's a bug. Em.... most FreeBSD developers are?! Do a search of the archives (esp. in -stable)... Statements like this make it even more confusing to me. I thought the purpose of doing a buildworld first was to ensure you have the latest toolchain... I agree with Donald: it is ridiculous to force people to do a buildworld if they havent upgraded their sources. And I would *love* to see a make buildkernel target where you didn't have to buildworld in order to let it complete. --Stijn -- Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010118084852.A46924>