> Yes, and you can pass "-V MAKECONF=/etc/makenetbsd.conf" to build.sh
> to make it use that file instead of /etc/make.conf.

> > I must bear in mind that FreeBSD is much stabler than NetBSD on my
> > hardware.

> Please report crashes.  I don't know whether there's a document on how
> to do that, but you can use the send-pr(1) program, and include the
> relevant kernel messages (the green text you might see on the
> console), and any extra information you are able to gather from the
> kernel debugger (an abbreviated version of the output from ddb's "bt"
> command is often useful).

> > Now I think I could use a newer gcc from FreeBSD ports if I choose
> > or need to cross-compile NetBSD from FreeBSD.
>
> > I always use build.sh to build NetBSD system, have never used make
> > directly for that purpose.

> Please just use build.sh.  It should allow building NetBSD from
> FreeBSD, or building NetBSD from another version of NetBSD, or many
> other things.

> It is theoretically possible to use a different compiler, but that's
> usually done only by people who are porting NetBSD to a new platform,
> porting a new compiler to NetBSD, or something similarly tricky.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

On 
> I just looked in NetBSD's /etc/mk.conf and found the lines
> #if BSD_PKG_MK
> #endif
> with pkgsrc stuff in between, so those lines are still there.

I hand-copied it wrong as had John Nemeth before me.  I also might have
had #define and #include C preprocessor statements on the back of my mind.

Advice in build.sh and BUILDING is to use build.sh instead of directly
running make.

A "different compiler" I might use would be a newer version of gcc as opposed
to an entirely different compiler (what else for NetBSD, other than llvm/clang?)

I've complained about crashes, instabilities and comical failures in NetBSD
since summer 2011, and wondered if it was worth the trouble.

A problem with send-pr is where to specify the outgoing SMTP server.  It's
easier to set up msmtp or other SMTP client.  Sendmail is so mysterious, mystic,
and postfix is almost as bad.

Tom

Reply via email to