Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:27:44 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: rkw@dataplex.net, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf Makefile.i386 Message-ID: <199504042127.PAA07392@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) "Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf Makefile.i386" (Apr 4, 2:45pm)
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > *BLECH* BSD systems have *never* (and should *never*) require that you > > have the complete source tree installed just to build a kernel. Making > > them go through alot of trouble to build a kernel is a waste of their > > time. Many, many more people build kernels w/out src trees than people > > who build kernels w/src trees. We are trying to make the system > > *easier* to use for the avg. user w/out penalizing the developer. > > I'm glad you said this. > > When will the binary link kit be available? What does the binary link bit by the avg. user that downloading the source tree doesn't? Most of the sources have conditional code in them which makes a binary link kit less useful than a source-code kernel kit. And, it also is less sexy to get .o files when users can get sources. :) > The really nice thing about this, of course, is that multiport > board drivers and Adaptec drivers using Adaptec code, and (potentially) > the Intel supplied-for-MACH binary math coprocesser emulator could > all be supplied without sources in full conformance to the non > disclosure agreements required to obtain them. This can still be done. Read the docs on config on how to provide binary-only modules. It's fairly easy to setup, and it's how Ultrix is distributed currently. But, the issue of binary modules is a political one not a technical one. I'll let you deal with the bigger problem rather than attacking straw men. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504042127.PAA07392>