Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 00:31:02 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf Makefile.i386 Message-ID: <71685.915784262@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:29:03 %2B0800." <199901080729.PAA40072@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As a concession to Julian, he does have a point. If we installed the new > kernel in (say) /boot/kernel (or /modules/kernel) where the bootloader will > find it but the old bootblocks will not, there is no chance that people > will blow their feet off by replacing /kernel with something that is > unbootable. In that scenario, the worst that can happen if they don't I would not object to /boot/kernel since this is simply moving rather than renaming it, but I'd be pretty skeptical of any change to this effect which did not also go WELL out of its way in making sure that the handbook, FAQ and any effected man pages were updated as well. Basically, I would expect anyone seriously contemplating a change to the location of the kernel to also be willing to grind through the grep output for "/kernel" in /usr/src, /usr/doc and anywhere else this might be mentioned in order to provide diffs for the whole show, not just one piece. That would not be sufficient and I'd be the first to shoot such an incomplete proposal down. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?71685.915784262>