Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:50:48 +0100 From: Danny Pansters <danny@ricin.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel Questions Message-ID: <200403120250.48376.danny@ricin.com> In-Reply-To: <40510622.7020906@geminix.org> References: <20040311090126.GA19147@alzatex.com> <20040311183145.GG1378@alzatex.com> <40510622.7020906@geminix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 12 March 2004 01:36, Uwe Doering wrote: > Well, as far as the result is concerned, both methods are identical. > However, if you use the step-by-step procedure the object files remain > intact after a kernel build, or at least until you delete them > deliberately. So if you then have to make just a minor patch to one of > the source files, possibly in the course of a security advisory, 'make' > recompiles only the source file that changed. > > With the 'buildkernel' target, on the other hand, a complete kernel > build takes place, that is, it compiles all source files again, > regardless of how small the change you made actually was. This costs > considerably more time. > > That's why the (selectively executed) step-by-step method makes sense > for kernel development work and even the occasional security patch. I'd like to add to this, that if you do a buildworld in between the buildkernel target will build against this new world (tool chain) not against the installed one. Dan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403120250.48376.danny>