Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:47:00 -0000 From: Matthew Whelan <muttley@gotadsl.co.uk> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen), Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org>, "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /etc/make.conf question Message-ID: <94LKWSXTSPD0LI73HF86RP3VNKJ3W09.3c8e8564@VicNBob> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.20020312135845.0369fc20@207.227.119.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
12/03/2002 20:07:00, "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> wrote: >>I replace the second two steps with "make kernel". >> >>I'd be glad to know any disadvantage of that not shared by the two-step. > >Besides the fact that your modules are stale (make.conf change required to >avoid that) or that you are on your own when doing "unsupported" >procedures. The biggest problem is passing on such things to those that >don't know better, which is a disadvantage to those that later point out >the problem with deviating from accepted procedures. I cut further corners and "make update buildworld kernel" and forget about it for a few hours. Not yet returned to discover that it's been wasting hours sitting there informing me of an error. I can't help noticing the following in /usr/src/Makefile.inc1: # # kernel # # Short hand for `make buildkernel installkernel' # kernel: buildkernel installkernel So I'd say this is pretty safe really. Unless I *still* don't understand make, that is =] Matthew 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?94LKWSXTSPD0LI73HF86RP3VNKJ3W09.3c8e8564>