From owner-freebsd-doc Thu Jan 18 2:23:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from level3.dynacom.net (level3.dynacom.net [206.107.213.213]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C3BB37B404 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 25102 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jan 2001 10:23:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO urx.com) (206.159.132.160) by mail.urx.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2001 10:23:06 -0000 Message-ID: <3A66C40A.AA7045CA@urx.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:23:06 -0800 From: Kent Stewart Reply-To: kstewart@urx.com Organization: Dynacom X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmaddox@sc.rr.com Cc: Dan Langille , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: too much confusion over kernel building References: <20010118091839.7C8D13E02@bazooka.unixfreak.org>; <20010118042437.A41992@cae88-102-101.sc.rr.com> <200101180927.WAA14914@ducky.nz.freebsd.org> <20010118045440.A42092@cae88-102-101.sc.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Donald J . Maddox" wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:27:04PM +1300, Dan Langille wrote: > > On 18 Jan 2001, at 4:24, Donald J . Maddox wrote: > > > > > I agree. Frankly, there is no reason I can think of where the use of > > > buildkernel/installkernel would be in any meaningful way superior to > > > the old method *except* in the case of a toolchain upgrade that requires > > > new tools to build the new source. > > > > There is the added advantage that the "new" method involves fewer > > steps. And That Is A Good Thing (tm), especially for people new to > > FreeBSD. If they get get a kernel to compile and work the first time, > > without problems, it gives them a *big* boost. The few steps, the hard > > to mess up. > > For people new to FreeBSD, it's really not as simple as: > > # make buildkernel KERNEL=MYKERNEL > # make installkernel KERNEL=MYKERNEL > > At this point, the newbie has already had to: > > # cd /usr/src/sys//conf > # cp GENERIC MYKERNEL > # vi MYKERNEL > ... Agonizes over incomprehensible options/devices ... > > All of this is required regardless of whether you use 'the old > method' or 'the new method'. > > At this point, the newbie can: > > a) # config MYKERNEL > # cd ../../compile/MYKERNEL > # make depend > # make > # make install > > b) # cd /usr/src > # make buildkernel KERNEL=MYKERNEL > # make installkernel KERNEL=MYKERNEL > > Sure, b) has 2 less steps, but frankly, I think the difference is > lost in the noise. Actually creating a working custom config seems > to be the showstopper for most folks. In any case, talking about 2 > different ways of doing this is *sure* to confuse lots of people :) The way I'm reading mods MFC'ed to Makefile.inc1 by jkh on 1 Dec 2000, you can replace both of them with just make kernel KERNEL=MYKERNEL If you add KERNEL=MYKERNEL to your make.conf, it can simplify it to just "make kernel". I created a script to do the full blown way because I stood to high odds of flipping a letter in the middle and haven't tried "make kernel" to see if it works. Kent > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kbstew99@hotmail.com http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/index.html FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message