From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 23 13:57:06 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D436516A4CE for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thalia.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7098143D48 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:57:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-a191.otenet.gr [212.205.215.191]) by thalia.otenet.gr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3NKuog5017221 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:56:55 +0300 (EEST) Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3NKFpi6052117 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:15:51 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i3NKFpIu052116; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:15:51 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:15:51 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Terry L. Tyson Jr." Message-ID: <20040423201551.GB51713@gothmog.gr> References: <20040423131549.GA40621@tyson.homeunix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040423131549.GA40621@tyson.homeunix.org> cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: [PATCH] Re: handbook - kernel build question X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:57:06 -0000 [-- Message copied from freebsd-questions to freebsd-doc --] [-- where it fits the list charter a lot more. --] On 2004-04-23 08:15, "Terry L. Tyson Jr." wrote: > In section 9.3 of the handbook just before the two procedures it lists > "If you are building a new kernel without updating the source code > (perhaps just to add a new option, such as IPFIREWALL) you can use > either procedure." > > However, after the two procedures it says "If you have not upgraded > your source tree in any way (you have not run CVsup, CTM, or used > anoncvs), then you should use the config, make depend, make, make > install sequence." which is procedure 1. > > This seems contradictory to me. Also, I have not upgraded anything on > this particular box, used procedure 2 and all seems well. Hi Terry, IMHO, the wording could have been less confusing and certainly not contradictory at all, if the second snippet mentioned had used "could" instead of "should". Would it all look better written as shown below? %%% Index: chapter.sgml =================================================================== RCS file: /home/ncvs/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig/chapter.sgml,v retrieving revision 1.130 diff -u -r1.130 chapter.sgml --- chapter.sgml 25 Mar 2004 09:55:18 -0000 1.130 +++ chapter.sgml 23 Apr 2004 20:06:01 -0000 @@ -358,9 +358,11 @@ If you have not upgraded your source - tree in any way (you have not run CVSup, + tree in any way since the last time you successfully completed + a buildworld-installworld cycle + (you have not run CVSup, CTM, or used - anoncvs), then you should use the + anoncvs), then it is safe to use the config, make depend, make, make install sequence. %%% This would render as: If you have *not* upgraded your source tree in any way since the last time you successfully completed an `installworld' (you have not run CVSup, CTM, or used anoncvs), then it is safe to use the config, make depend, make, make install sequence. Is the (AFAICT intended) meaning clearer this way? - Giorgos