From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jul 27 8:40:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from pi.yip.org (yip.org [199.45.111.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5C937C0AD for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:40:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from melange@yip.org) Received: from localhost (melange@localhost) by pi.yip.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA54521 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:40:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from melange@yip.org) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:40:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob K X-Sender: melange@localhost To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Innacurate statements in handbook about buildkernel In-Reply-To: <200007270807.BAA24395@freeway.dcfinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Chad R. Larson wrote: > As I recall, Bob K wrote: > > No, no. You're all forgetting that on a system where the source, > > libraries, and building tools never change, it will always build > > consistently. It only comes into play when upgrading, but is merely one > > other thing to do differently while doing so. > > But I was discussing the case of the folks that want to build a > custom kernel, and catch bug fixes to the kernel sources without > committing the disk space and effort to tracking the -STABLE tree. > > Most of the time they will be ok. But in some cases, they will be > forced to choose between trying to SUP and build the whole source > tree, or forgo the kernel bug fixes. How is this different from how things were before the buildkernel target existed? -- Bob "Reality is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes" - The Amityville Horror III To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message