Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 23:01:51 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: procfs problems in -current? Message-ID: <199508162101.XAA05424@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <9508161736.AA09871@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Aug 16, 95 11:36:16 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Terry Lambert wrote: > > I'd prefer a system build rather than a kernel build for changes that > affect the semantics of interfaces... I don't know how you'd enforce > that if people only updated their kernel. Supposedly, you'd bump the > version number in the lkm.h at the same time. I consider the following CVS modules being part of the `kernel': config, include, sys, lkm. I'm regularly updating all of them, and if i see that CVS has been updating config, i'm going to reconfigure the kernel. (Depending on the announcements in the commit or current list, i sometimes even revamp the kernel from scratch then.) Generally, i'm updating the kernel more often than the whole world, that's why i'm doing it this way. (Of course, i'm aware of the fact that this sometimes might cause troubles, e.g. for the NFSv3 changes. I can live with this.) The latest round of changes in the mount struct's has been the first occasion where the above scheme didn't work (i.e., the dependencies are broken and the vnode_if.h files have not been rebuilt where they should have been). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508162101.XAA05424>