Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:35:57 -0500 From: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: old style kernel configuration Message-ID: <CACpH0McO5aCpubdXqct5N=mFrVcXjav7Czobom3DPgCmOK-CvQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgmxiaA1twJf%2BKMv=ZpxCWp1MdL5GEEEFLwBuRqcGpctdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxgmxiaA1twJf%2BKMv=ZpxCWp1MdL5GEEEFLwBuRqcGpctdQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: > I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. > While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the > "old style" kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. > > Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to > "make buildkernel" or should it be treated as an implementation detail? I suppose it makes less difference on a modern system where "make buildkernel" takes 15 minutes or even less, but the manual kernel build gives the opportunity to rebuild a kernel without building everything --- as in the case where you just modified something simple (say USB or PCI device IDs). I'm not talking about the dedicate kernel developer who should "know things" like this, but the user who makes these kernel modifications occasionally.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACpH0McO5aCpubdXqct5N=mFrVcXjav7Czobom3DPgCmOK-CvQ>