On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Jonathan Smith wrote:
> I'm going to drop the discussion. You're busy telling me why your way is
> best for me, when I'm saying it's fine, but not for me. Rather than
> listening and offering ideas, you're telling me why you are right.
That's not what he was saying
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Greg Lehey wrote:
> 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.
Agreed
> 2. I
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=" and
> KK> "make installkernel KERNEL=" (or set KERNEL in /etc/make.conf or
> KK> the environment, where KERNEL is
subscribe
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
This has been broken for quite a while and remarked upon in many fora, but
for for some reason our webmaster hasn't fixed it :-(
Kris
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I entered the following query into the search critera with
> only stable checked.
>
> "opera
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which "version" of KAME will be included in FreeBSD 4.1? Is it still
> expected to be released on July 15?
That's a good question. -current has KAME from 07/01, but -stable still
has the same KAME code that was in 4.0. I'm intending to merge it acro
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 10-Jul-00 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> > Adam wrote:
> >>
> >> Stick kernel="/XXX" in /boot/loader.conf
> >>
> >
> > OK, this had better be documented when the make installkernel is documented.
>
> Actually, I think it's changed in -curren
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Colin wrote:
> I found this rule was the problem using ipfw show (a very useful command
> when you're building a ruleset to see what is blocking you) which is why I
> moved it. My concern is that it shouldn't block packets from an external
> source (eg www.FreeBSD.org ;
On 10-Jul-00 Eric Jacoboni wrote:
>> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kris> You can also build kernels the "old way" and it will work most of the
> Kris> time, but "buildkernel" is the officially supported way for *all*
> kernel
> Kris> builds - so please don't post bu
On 10-Jul-00 Doug White wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Colin wrote:
>
>> The man page recommends putting the divert rule as close to the
>> beginning
>> of the rule set as possible, and the default rule sets seem consistent
>> with this. I noticed, though, that if I didn't put the rule
The problem disappears when you do 'make world' _before_ rebuilding
the kernel.
fz
On 09-Jul-00 Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> Hello,
> -I../../../include -D_KERNEL -include opt_global.h -elf
> -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 ../../i386/i386/bioscall.s
> /tmp/ccc89247.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/ccc8
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
> There is also the option of naming your kernel config file "kernel".
>
Yes, but some people don't like to name their children "kernel" for
whatever reason.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in t
> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kris> You can also build kernels the "old way" and it will work most of the
Kris> time, but "buildkernel" is the officially supported way for *all* kernel
Kris> builds - so please don't post bug reports unless you've tried buildkernel
Kris
> "KK" == Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KK> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Vivek Khera wrote:
>> 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.
KK> Buildkernel
14 matches
Mail list logo
