On Monday, 10 July 2000 at 10:04:53 -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>>>>>> "KK" == Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> KK> Subject basically says it all. "make buildkernel KERNEL=<whatever>" and
> KK> "make installkernel KERNEL=<whatever>" (or set KERNEL in /etc/make.conf or
> KK> the environment, where KERNEL is the name of the kernel to build (GENERIC,
> KK> etc)) are what you should always be using to build your kernels, unless
> KK> you know what you're doing.
>
> So you're saying that even after upgrading from 3.4 to 4.0 you should
> use make buildkernel? That seems counter to what has been discussed
> before, and is way non-BSD-ish.
Agreed. I tried it out and found a number of things I didn't like
about it. Basically, it's a completely different build process:
1. Before building, it removes the existing kernel build tree.
There's no good reason for this.
2. It builds in a different tree (/usr/obj instead of
/usr/src/sys/compile). These two points mean that if you later
want to go back and tune your kernel (change a driver parameter,
say), you can't just do a config; cd ../../compile/FOO; make, you
have to go the whole nine yards.
3. It gives the kernel a different name.
4. It's just plain clumsy.
Greg
--
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
