Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:29:06 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Darren Pilgrim <dmp@pantherdragon.org> Cc: Brad Laue <brad@brad-x.com>, "Kirk R. Wythers" <kwythers@umn.edu>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: upgrading from STABLE to 5.0 Message-ID: <20030120232905.GA3114@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <3E2C7F5A.1040702@pantherdragon.org> References: <1043080805.29319.14.camel@x74-47.forestry.umn.edu> <3E2C6B7C.6070205@brad-x.com> <20030120220827.GA2533@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <3E2C7F5A.1040702@pantherdragon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 02:59:38PM -0800, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > Erik Trulsson wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:34:52PM -0500, Brad Laue wrote: > > > >>Kirk R. Wythers wrote: > >> > >> > >>>1) I see a line in the UPDATING file that says: > >>>make buildkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HERE > >> > >>A question arises based on this line. > >> > >>This is instructed to be run after 'make buildworld', but not after make > >>installworld. Is there a drawback to building the kernel in this way, > >>considering it will be built with GCC 2.95.4 and not 3.2.1? Is > >>rebuilding the kernel again after installworld a recommended practice? > > > >Doing a 'make buildkernel' directly after a 'make buildworld' should > >build the kernel using the compiler just built with the buildworld. > >So there should be no need to rebuild the kernel again. > > How do the build tools make the jump? If you compile the new build tools > for 5.0, how are they able to run on 4.x (to build the rest of the world) > and 5.x (to build later worlds after the upgrade)? > Since the buildtools are statically linked there are no problems with incompatible shared libraries. Then as long as the programs don't use any system calls that are only available on one of 4.x or 5.x there should be no problems (and I can't think of any good reason why a compiler would need to use such systemcalls.) In fact I would say that if you could *not* build programs under 5.0 that will work on 4.x (or vice versa) then FreeBSD would be badly broken. I do not believe FreeBSD is that broken. (During a buildworld several programs are actually built twice. First in a version that is statically linked version, that is sometimes linked against the existing system libraries. This is used in later parts of buildworld/buildkernel. Then they are built again in the "real" version which is the one that gets installed in an installworld.) Most problems that occur when trying to run programs compiled on one version of FreeBSd on another version is due to incorrect shared libraries. Using statically linked binaries removes all those problems. (There are of course other problems that can occur, but they are fairly uncommon.) -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030120232905.GA3114>