Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 01:12:43 +0100 From: "Herbert J. Skuhra" <herbert@mailbox.org> To: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: make buildkernel does not respect KERNCONF or JOBS in /etc/make.conf Message-ID: <86r35cptz8.wl-herbert@mailbox.org> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1sQOtkONb0fdSr_1p2LpV=UsqqvnzxO_GnRO%2BdueC4DOg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201612120138.uBC1cA59025994@sdf.org> <86r35dd46x.wl-herbert@mailbox.org> <9B.7B.16304.3F86E485@dnvrco-omsmta02> <15672f53-1a34-3120-0aa8-03aa6401be54@zyxst.net> <CAN6yY1sQOtkONb0fdSr_1p2LpV=UsqqvnzxO_GnRO%2BdueC4DOg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kevin Oberman skrev: > = > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:16 AM, tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> wr= ote: >> On 12/12/2016 09:07, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> = >>> My question is, do you build modules redundantly, or just once? >>> I don't want to build the same modules more than once. >>> = >> = >> For me - redundantly, I guess. It's not like it takes a lot of time = or >> space on the compiling machine, and I ensure that everything that ne= eds to >> be built, is built. >> = >> PUMPKIN =3D heavily modified config with all the stuff I don't need = stripped >> out, and a couple of non-default lines. >> = >> GENERIC =3D unmodified kernel that should work if by some chance PUM= PKIN >> doesn't. >> -- >> J. > = > = > Clearly the documentation is a bit behind the times. For some time pe= ople > have used KERNCONF to build multiple kernels, but that was a lucky th= ings > that was not officially supported. It just happened to work. Then, wi= th > 11.0, it no longer did in many cases sue to changes in the kernel bui= ld > system. When people complained, there did not seem to be a way to fix= this > without blocking future goals in speeding up and enhancinghte standar= d > kernel build. > = > The result was BUILDKERNELS. It was specifically designed to allow th= e > building of multiple kernels and the appropriate modules. This would = always > take longer and use more disk space, but it would work reliably. Now,= bit > building a single, local kernel, KERNCONF is the best way, though I s= uspect > that it make only a small difference until new capabilities are added= later > in the life of 11. > = > So, while it seems the man pages need to catch up, building multiple > kernels should be done with KERNCONF in either make.conf or src.conf = and > multiple kernels with BUILDKERNELS. ??? From=20/usr/src/Makefile.inc1: 1137 .if ${TARGET_ARCH} =3D=3D "powerpc64" 1138 KERNCONF?=3D GENERIC64 1139 .else 1140 KERNCONF?=3D GENERIC 1141 .endif [...] 1151 .if defined(NO_INSTALLKERNEL) 1152 # All of the BUILDKERNELS loops start at index 1. 1153 BUILDKERNELS+=3D dummy 1154 .endif 1155 .for _kernel in ${KERNCONF} 1156 .if exists(${KERNCONFDIR}/${_kernel}) 1157 BUILDKERNELS+=3D ${_kernel} 1158 .if empty(INSTALLKERNEL) && !defined(NO_INSTALLKERNEL) 1159 INSTALLKERNEL=3D ${_kernel} 1160 .endif 1161 .endif 1162 .endfor So setting BUILDKERNELS has no effect. -- Herbert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86r35cptz8.wl-herbert>