Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 15:42:00 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/defaults make.conf src/sys Makefile src/sys/conf Makefile.alpha Makefile.i386 Message-ID: <32002.957534120@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 May 2000 22:31:56 -0400." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005042222120.79947-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 04 May 2000 22:31:56 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > Second, Peter's informed me he's getting fairly close to replacing > /sys/modules, so it's just not worth any more screwing around with. I > didn't learn that until after I committed it. One thing that we _will_ need to do is figure out how to make the module build more accessible. For example, the detachment of the module build from buildworld means that folks who use buildworld/buildkernel and then installkernel/installworld don't get any up-to-date modules at all! > Why didn't you comment then? When you made your proposal, I was in favour. I didn't, however, expect the module build to be exclusive to the method of building modules within the actual source tree. I expected modules to be built in the kernel obj directory, such that buildkernel and installkernel would build and install the modules correctly. This was probably naive on my part. Now we either need to teach buildkernel and installkernel to build and install modules, or we need new buildmodules and installmodules targets. I'm in favour of the former option, given how closely tied the modules are to the kernel. Ciao, Sheldon. 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?32002.957534120>