Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:38:58 +0100 From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> To: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> Cc: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: old style kernel configuration Message-ID: <20121122163857.GA25225@dft-labs.eu> In-Reply-To: <CACpH0McO5aCpubdXqct5N=mFrVcXjav7Czobom3DPgCmOK-CvQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxgmxiaA1twJf%2BKMv=ZpxCWp1MdL5GEEEFLwBuRqcGpctdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACpH0McO5aCpubdXqct5N=mFrVcXjav7Czobom3DPgCmOK-CvQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:35:57AM -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: > > I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. > > While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the > > "old style" kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. > > > > Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to > > "make buildkernel" or should it be treated as an implementation detail? > > I suppose it makes less difference on a modern system where "make > buildkernel" takes 15 minutes or even less, but the manual kernel > build gives the opportunity to rebuild a kernel without building > everything --- as in the case where you just modified something simple > (say USB or PCI device IDs). I'm not talking about the dedicate > kernel developer who should "know things" like this, but the user who > makes these kernel modifications occasionally. # make buildkernel ... KERNFAST=1 -- Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121122163857.GA25225>