Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:56:04 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/26317: /modules not created by make installkernel Message-ID: <20010406145604.A447@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104041605200.38014-100000@besplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:13:25PM %2B1000 References: <200104031540.f33Fe4x94227@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104041605200.38014-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:13:25PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> > The following reply was made to PR kern/26317; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> The following reply was not been noted by GNATS, since GNATS is too broken
> to put itself in the Cc :-).
>
> > As you correctly point out, a workaround is to always have a /modules dir.
> > I wonder, though, whether the 'installkernel' target in Makefile.inc1 should
> > not, too, invoke a 'make hierarchy', or at least some subset of that, to do
> > an mtree from BSD.root.dist; that should ensure that the /modules directory
> > is there.
>
> No more than sh/Makefile should invoke a 'make hierarchy', or at least some
> subset of that, to recover from /bin somehow not existing.
So, basically, are you saying that this is not a problem and this PR should
be closed, or do you think the installkernel target should at least make
an attempt at doing the right thing in case of a user mess-up, and just
mkdir ${DESTDIR}/modules?
G'luck,
Peter
--
I am jealous of the first word in this sentence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010406145604.A447>