Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 05:09:17 -0500 (EST) From: Luke <lh@aus.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sys/compile directories... Message-ID: <199812060953.EAA14122@ayukawa.aus.org> In-Reply-To: <199812060140.RAA01908@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> IMHO it's better to use sys/ARCH/compile to denote the architecture it's
>> under
>> (after all we make our kernel specifications in sys/ARCH/conf, so ../compile
>> would seem logical, at least in my eyes)
>
> FWIW, I vote for sys/compile/<ARCH>/<CONFIGNAME>.
>
> What about this idea.. "config -d directory ..." where you specify
> the directory you want to compile in. config(8) automatically
> adjusts all the filenames, etc.
>
> -Archie
as a home user, just a small thing, as long as cd
../../compile/kernel-filename works, then its a somewhat transparent change.
which sys/ARCH/conf sys/ARCH/compile seems to make work ,,
sys/compile/ARCH/ & sys/conf/ARCH/ means someone who has used the tree for a
while could be confused by having to go ../../compile/ARCH/NAME after running
config.
Also if more platforms are added and have more hardware specific code added,
its more logical to goto src/sys/ARCH to look through the tree for stuff fot he
machine, whereas in the 2nd case I assume there would just be more ARCH things
throught the tree as opposed to trying to keep them together <which it seems
sys/i386 is meant for, to keep all aspects of that in one place>.
---
E-Mail: Luke <lh@aus.org>
Sent by XFMail
----------------------------------
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812060953.EAA14122>