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>