Don Lewis wrote:
>
> While proper cross-compilation would be really nice to have, it won't solve
> the "make world" problem. It would get you through "make buildworld", but
> "make installworld" will overwrite the system binaries with new versions that
> use the new signal syscalls that the currently running kernel doesn't support.
> It would even be possible to cross-compile a new kernel, but it still has
> to be installed and the system rebooted before installing userland.
Correct. If you want to be able to upgrade your -stable system to
-current by simply typeing 'make upgrade', then building and installing
the kernel should be part of that target. The installworld problem can
then be solved like this (for example):
1) backup binaries that are needed by installworld
2) Install a new kernel
3) install world
4) reboot
If installworld fails halfway through step 3, and leaves you with an
unusable system, then rebooting should be able to solve that.
> In this particular case, the only thing cross-compilation would buy us
> is the ability to build (but not install) 4.x binaries on a machine
> running 3.x. It sounds like some folks would be satisfied just having
> that.
Exactly, but done properly (or at all) installing may be possible as
well. I think we should aim for that to happen and see where it leads
us.
--
Marcel Moolenaar mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/
The FreeBSD project mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
