Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:36:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Wyman <wysoft@wysoft.tzo.com> To: Francisco Reyes <fran@reyes.somos.net> Cc: Vivek Khera <khera@kciLink.com>, "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: why new buildkernel (was HEADS UP! Always use the 'make buildkernel' ..." Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110135480.3018-100000@wysoft.tzo.com> In-Reply-To: <200007110601.CAA36394@vulcan.addy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Why is this new procedure necessary. > I recall reading is because of some new additions, but what were > these additions (I have seen the name, but have no clue what > they are.. binutils?) and why the new, more cumbersome, > procedure? > francisco > Moderator of the Corporate BSD list > http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate If you missed one of Kris Kennaway's previous messages about this, this is how he described it: --SNIP-- Buildkernel internally handles tool dependency problems, where the kernel build depends on tools which were built by make installworld, but not yet installed on the system. The alternative is to post a detailed list of which bits must be installed before you can build your new kernel, each time it happens, which is error-prone and subject to people not reading their mail (oops, which is exactly what happened this time around). --SNIP-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110135480.3018-100000>