Date: 19 Jul 2002 13:30:35 -0500 From: Craig Boston <craig@meoqu.gank.org> To: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel config problem with 4.6-STABLE... [solution] Message-ID: <1027103476.19808.21.camel@owen1492.it.oot> In-Reply-To: <20020719195738.Y1494@shell.gsinet.sittig.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020717152215.00a79df0@dns1.popstick.com> <000601c22e72$58b76a80$fb00000a@promethium> <20020719195738.Y1494@shell.gsinet.sittig.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 12:57, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > > Don't make the above buildworld/buildkernel sequence sound like > a mere workaround. It is the one and only supported way to to > it, it is described in detail in UPDATING (which you are supposed > to read should you upgrade from the source). It is the official > way to build a kernel. Perhaps the handbook should stress this more (and not list the "old" method first). http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig-building.html I know that's the section on building a custom kernel, not upgrading. However many people -- including me before I knew better -- read that one first and build a few kernels on RELEASE long before upgrading. Then when it's time to cvsup they just stick with the method that they know better. Thoughts, comments? Is there any reason _not_ to encourage buildkernel for making standalone kernels? Craig To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1027103476.19808.21.camel>