Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:16:11 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/43941: Rationale for Upgrade Sequence Message-ID: <20021013201611.GH10829@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <w865w8a1mm.5w8@localhost.localdomain> References: <200210112220.g9BMK35l024231@freefall.freebsd.org> <w865w8a1mm.5w8@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-10-11 18:26, "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> wrote: > I see no reason why the two kernel steps shouldn't be combined into > one "make kernel" step. If you take the two step approach, you also get a chance to do custom shuffling around of kernel and module files, before running the final installkernel step. Before enabling GEOM in my FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT installation, I stopped after buildkernel and copied my old /boot/kernel tree to /boot/kernel.nogeom to save myself from a broken kernel installation. The usual installkernel procedure will save the old /boot/kernel tree in /boot/kernel.old, but I just used the two step buildkernel/installkernel procedure to be extra cautious and careful about what changes I am making to avoid ending up with an unbootable system that had no well-known kernel to boot. - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021013201611.GH10829>