Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:58:33 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: re@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, Murray Stokely <murray.stokely@gmail.com>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, doc@FreeBSD.org, Marc Ren? Arns <dienst@marcrenearns.de> Subject: Re: make buildkernel fails without complete source tree Message-ID: <45B51769.60902@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1169492498.11889.74.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <200701171832.28368.dienst@marcrenearns.de> <474078f80701181348q16ceb16bs40ba45b3d7057b83@mail.gmail.com> <20070121212428.GA47379@rambler-co.ru> <200701221111.56264.jhb@freebsd.org> <1169489832.11889.64.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> <45B506A7.7060909@FreeBSD.org> <1169492498.11889.74.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ken Smith wrote:
> IMHO we should
> either leave it as-is for the traditionalists or we should bite the
> bullet and stop providing a separate kernel source tree. As John
> pointed out in the message after this one life has moved on and
> now /usr/src is teeny compared to the size of disks. Is it worth the
> hassle/confusion to provide just kernel source any more?
I personally don't think so, but I didn't want to suggest anything so
revolutionary. :)
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45B51769.60902>