Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:50:27 -0500 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP! Always use the 'make buildkernel' target to make yer kernels Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000711143135.00b1a900@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110942380.3232-100000@turtle.looksharp.n et> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007102210380.62439-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:04 AM 7/11/00 -0400, Brandon D. Valentine wrote: >Kris, >You have some very valid concerns from a support perspective, and I >respect that. What I believe you are failing to take into account is >the fact that the buildkernel target requires a full source repository >and object tree. It is not that people object to a /usr/src level >target for kernel builds, they object to the idea that The FreeBSD >Project would require all users to have an entire source tree and object >tree for something as common as a kernel build. Often users chose to >stay with -RELEASE and those users need to be able to install only >src-sys from their RELEASE CDROMs and build and install custom kernels. >It would be a bit obtuse to do a full buildworld in order to obtain an >object tree if one was planning on staying with -RELEASE code. The only >way I can see making it feasible to for the buildworld target to be >universally supported is to implement some sort of a check to see >whether or not the version of the kernel code is different from that of >the currently running kernel. If that is the case, then an object tree >should be required. Otherwise buildkernel should use the build tools >from the running system. I may be wrong, since I don't as up-to-date to date with -current discussions, but there may be a time when src/sys is not enough to build a kernel (ie src-sys-crypto). Regardless... Considering the reluctance of many to a new "official" way of building kernels that is more complicated and requires more work than reasonable to "just build a new kernel." I'm inclined to agree with you (and others), but my current buildworld will need a buildkernel due to the crossing of the binutils. And yet the other reason for this change being pushed so hard is to make sure that modules and kernel are kept in synch. The NO_MODULES (with kernel) and MODULES_WITH_WORLD are there for this. By default if you buildworld and use the old method, then your modules will *not* be built and that could be a serious problem. Perhaps when changes are made that require a buildkernel a "HEAD's UP" should be sent. Then one must otherwise uncomment the MODULES_WITH_WORLD or expect to really be flamed for using the old kernel building method. Not quite what Kris is saying, but is a bit of a compromise. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve 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?4.3.2.20000711143135.00b1a900>