In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dima Dorfman writes:
: I thought about this, too. Right now there isn't a way to do that,
: and neither OpenBSD nor NetBSD have one AFAIK. That said, I think it
: would be trivial to implement. The list of options and devices is a
: simple linked list (mind you, i
* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010626 02:41] wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > Actually, make depend takes a relatively long time, and when
> > I'm hacking on a kernel, I don't want to wait 15 minutes to
> > build a kernel after changing one file. I compile kernels
> > w/o config or mak
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> Actually, make depend takes a relatively long time, and when
> I'm hacking on a kernel, I don't want to wait 15 minutes to
> build a kernel after changing one file. I compile kernels
> w/o config or make depend a lot.
Me too. I can make a small set of changes to a coupl
On 24-Jun-01 Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:44:51PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On 23-Jun-01 Peter Pentchev wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:23:35PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> >> > make buildkernel is rather easy way to work it around: in
>> >> > any case objec
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:27:35AM +0300, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 00:05:36, clefevre-lists (Cyrille Lefevre) wrote about "Re:
>"include" directive in config(8) (was: Two Junior Kernel Hacker tasks..)":
>
> > how about "undef
Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 00:05:36, clefevre-lists (Cyrille Lefevre) wrote about "Re:
"include" directive in config(8) (was: Two Junior Kernel Hacker tasks..)":
> how about "undef options XXX" and "undef device XXX", etc. ?
s/undef/no/
I like Cisco sty
Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there a way to "undef" an option?
>
> I thought about this, too. Right now there isn't a way to do that,
> and neither OpenBSD nor NetBSD have one AFAIK. That said, I think it
> would be trivial to implem
Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a way to "undef" an option?
I thought about this, too. Right now there isn't a way to do that,
and neither OpenBSD nor NetBSD have one AFAIK. That said, I think it
would be trivial to implement. The list of options and devices is a
simple link
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Which is another good reason for sys/compile/${MACHINE}/FOO
: Otherwise where DOES the pc98 kernel builds happen? Under the
: non-existant sys/pc98/ ?
David, a simple ls to sys/pc98 shows that it is populated with lots of
files.
% ls ~
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
: > Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
: >
: > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
:
: It makes it harder to make src/sys/compile a single simple symlink to
: writable storage.
Is there a way to "undef" an option?
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: > Sure, sounds good. Actually, with mjacob's suggestion, I would go with
: > sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO
:
: pc98 and powerpc variations will make this ugly.
No they won't. pc98 is the reason that this *MAKES* sense.
Warner
To Unsubsc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 12:42:36PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
: > Please use ${MACHINE}, not ${MACHINE_ARCH}. That way I can build
: > GENERIC for both i386 and pc98 at the same time without resorting to
: > the GENERIC98 hack I use now.
:
> > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
> It makes it harder to make src/sys/compile a single simple symlink to
> writable storage.
There is no need to make symlink in src tree.
> -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Are you David O'Brien or freebsd-hackers list itself?
/netch
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:44:51PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 23-Jun-01 Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:23:35PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >> > make buildkernel is rather easy way to work it around: in
> >> > any case object tree is machine-dependent, and one yet
>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 12:11:36PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 22-Jun-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
> >: 2) Build kernels in sys/compile/${MACHINE_ARCH}/FOO rather than
> >: sys/compile/FOO.
> >
> > Please use ${MACHINE}, not ${MACHINE_ARCH}. T
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 12:42:36PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> Please use ${MACHINE}, not ${MACHINE_ARCH}. That way I can build
> GENERIC for both i386 and pc98 at the same time without resorting to
> the GENERIC98 hack I use now.
...
> I'd be up for doing this, so long as I got to choose where
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:51:54PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 11:43:58AM -0700, Matthew Jacob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Yes, and you're right. But we'll probably never do this (tm).
>
> Never say never. I for one am in favor of that system. =)
Yuck! Puke! I for
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
>
> sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
It makes it harder to make src/sys/compile a single simple symlink to
writable storage.
Our /sys layout is suffiently different from NetBSD, I don't think th
Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:23:35, tlambert2 (Terry Lambert) wrote about "Re: Two Junior
Kernel Hacker tasks..":
> > make buildkernel is rather easy way to work it around: in
> > any case object tree is machine-dependent, and one yet
> > another directory does not dest
[ peter@ cc'd because he's done a lot of work with config(8) ]
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22-Jun-01 Dima Dorfman wrote:
> > John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 1) Split sys/i386/conf/NOTES up into MI and MD parts. The MI portion would
> >>become sys/conf/NOTES an
On 23-Jun-01 Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:23:35PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> > make buildkernel is rather easy way to work it around: in
>> > any case object tree is machine-dependent, and one yet
>> > another directory does not destroy anything. ;|
>>
>> The "make buil
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 02:03:53PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > Terry, this is simply not true. Even in -stable, config(8)
> > is smart enough to try reading the opt_*.h files, and not
> > change them if they already contain the values it is about
> > to write there.
>
Peter Pentchev wrote:
> Terry, this is simply not true. Even in -stable, config(8)
> is smart enough to try reading the opt_*.h files, and not
> change them if they already contain the values it is about
> to write there.
Rerunning config and make depend always result in more
things being recomp
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:23:35PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > make buildkernel is rather easy way to work it around: in
> > any case object tree is machine-dependent, and one yet
> > another directory does not destroy anything. ;|
>
> The "make buildkernel" approach sucks for incremental
> b
> make buildkernel is rather easy way to work it around: in
> any case object tree is machine-dependent, and one yet
> another directory does not destroy anything. ;|
The "make buildkernel" approach sucks for incremental
builds, since you are unable to avoid the "config" run
each time, and a lot
Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:52:01, jhb (John Baldwin) wrote about "Two Junior Kernel
Hacker tasks..":
> 2) Build kernels in sys/compile/${MACHINE_ARCH}/FOO rather than sys/compile/FOO.
I'd like to qualify the whole idea to put compilation data in some subdirectory
of /usr/src
On 22-Jun-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob
> writes:
>: > > I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the
>: > > last 3-4
>: > > years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be
>: > > playing
>: > > me false.
>: >
>:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob writes:
: > > I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
: > > years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be playing
: > > me false.
: >
: > If I've said that before (and I'm not sure that I have
> > I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
> > years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be playing
> > me false.
>
> If I've said that before (and I'm not sure that I have), I have changed my
> mind. I would prefer sys/{arch}/compile.
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > >
> > > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
> >
> > Sure, fine. I don't really care which, I just would like the problem solve
d
> > somehow. :)
>
> I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
> years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!,
On 22-Jun-01 Dima Dorfman wrote:
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) Split sys/i386/conf/NOTES up into MI and MD parts. The MI portion would
>>become sys/conf/NOTES and would contain all the machine independent
>>options and devices. The MD options and devices would live in
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Split sys/i386/conf/NOTES up into MI and MD parts. The MI portion would
>become sys/conf/NOTES and would contain all the machine independent
>options and devices. The MD options and devices would live in
>sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/conf/NOTES.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: I think we are just getting e-mails crossed. :) Sounds good. Can't wait to
: see the commit. :) Now to get someone to tackle the first item on the list...
Hey, I did my part for the cause. Let someone else do NOTES.
Warner
To Unsubscribe
On 22-Jun-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: Sure, sounds good. Actually, with mjacob's suggestion, I would go with
>: sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO
>
> You are behind on your email. I've already posted patches that do
> exactly this. It turns out to b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: Sure, sounds good. Actually, with mjacob's suggestion, I would go with
: sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO
You are behind on your email. I've already posted patches that do
exactly this. It turns out to be very easy. I've also built a kernel
with
On 22-Jun-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: 2) Build kernels in sys/compile/${MACHINE_ARCH}/FOO rather than
>: sys/compile/FOO.
>
> Please use ${MACHINE}, not ${MACHINE_ARCH}. That way I can build
> GENERIC for both i386 and pc98 at the same time wit
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Warner Losh writes:
: However, I think the following would work for
: sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO. Note, I only did i386, but could do
: others as well fairly quickly.
Actually, the last patch is bad. Try this one. You will need to
mkdir sys/${MACHINE}/compile. T
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 11:43:58AM -0700, Matthew Jacob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Yes, and you're right. But we'll probably never do this (tm).
Never say never. I for one am in favor of that system. =)
Unfortunately at the moment we have sys/${MACHINE}/compile rather
than sys/arch/${MACHINE
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob writes:
: Yes, and you're right. But we'll probably never do this (tm).
I keep trying :-)
However, I think the following would work for
sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO. Note, I only did i386, but could do
others as well fairly quickly.
Warner
Index: sys
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Will Andrews writes:
: I thought it was sys/arch/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile? ;)
: Aren't you a NetBSD developer[*]?
Actually, it is sys/arch/${MACHINE}/compile since you can have
different machines based on the same machine_arch. Look at the number
of mips, 60k, powe
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Matthew Jacob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
> >
> > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
>
> I thought it was sys/arch/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile? ;)
> Aren't you a NetBSD develop
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob writes:
: Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
:
: sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
That would be my second chopice (assumnig that we really do do it like
NetBSD and use ${MACHINE} rather than ${MACHINE_ARCH}).
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EM
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Matthew Jacob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
>
> sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
I thought it was sys/arch/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile? ;)
Aren't you a NetBSD developer[*]?
--
wca
[*] Sorry, couldn't resist.
To Unsubsc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: 2) Build kernels in sys/compile/${MACHINE_ARCH}/FOO rather than sys/compile/FOO.
Please use ${MACHINE}, not ${MACHINE_ARCH}. That way I can build
GENERIC for both i386 and pc98 at the same time without resorting to
the GENERIC98 hack I use no
>
> The thing I like though is that when my test box hangs, I have the kernel.debug
> still accessible so I can pull up remote gdb on the machine. Hence the desire
> to share sys/compile over NFS as well.
>
Yes, that's helpful too.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubsc
On 22-Jun-01 Matthew Jacob wrote:
>> >
>> > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
>>
>> Sure, fine. I don't really care which, I just would like the problem solved
>> somehow. :)
>
> I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
> years either Bruce or Peter or both said
> >
> > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
>
> Sure, fine. I don't really care which, I just would like the problem solved
> somehow. :)
I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be playing
me false.
On 22-Jun-01 Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> This is a request for some simple changes to the kernel configuration stuff
>> that would be nice to have if someone wants to do them before I finally (if
>> ever) get around to doing it. Both
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> This is a request for some simple changes to the kernel configuration stuff
> that would be nice to have if someone wants to do them before I finally (if
> ever) get around to doing it. Both have to do with making our kernel config
> stuf
Hey all,
This is a request for some simple changes to the kernel configuration stuff
that would be nice to have if someone wants to do them before I finally (if
ever) get around to doing it. Both have to do with making our kernel config
stuff more multi-platform friendly.
1) Split sys/i386/conf
51 matches
Mail list logo
