From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Jul 13 14:11:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [198.128.4.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D2637B405 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:11:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oberman@ptavv.es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f6DLBqA18338; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200107132111.f6DLBqA18338@ptavv.es.net> To: User & Ian Patrick Thomas Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Building a New Kernel In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:32:59 EDT." <20010713163259.B3028@localhost> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:11:52 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:32:59 -0400 > From: User & Ian Patrick Thomas > > Any advantage to splitting the process into two lines? I didn't know > that you could condense the process into one. Yes. There are times when I want to build a new kernel but not have it installed immediately. For example, building the kernel takes a few minutes and I may build one and then leave the system for an indeterminate time. If something causes the system to crash (perish the thought), I don't want it to boot the untested kernel while I'm away. When I get back, I do a 'make installkernel' and boot it immediately. While I have done that, it's rare. I almost always do a 'make kernel'. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message