Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:04:22 -0500 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: svn-doc-head@freebsd.org, svn-doc-all@freebsd.org, doc-committers@freebsd.org, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Subject: Re: svn commit: r40117 - in head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook: kernelbuild policies tools Message-ID: <CAF6rxgkCkOwFqZvvFQQp_zQJsjDsvdDB2Vc=y7biQeHc91k_hw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CE9A6172-0450-4F60-9234-F8B159260A7C@bsdimp.com> References: <201211211357.qALDvDsP064264@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1211211255140.2164@multics.mit.edu> <CAF6rxgmjGS3ahcrVsgzPqo%2B-ep9PyOmPn6oZBEH0AWJYDChzCw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1211212031500.2164@multics.mit.edu> <CE9A6172-0450-4F60-9234-F8B159260A7C@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 November 2012 20:59, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>> This should probably be documented in config(1) or some other "how the >> (config(8)) >>> build process works" document. So far as I could tell, the old method >>> should be considered an implementation detail, not an alternative. >> >> The old method does not require building a toolchain or buildenv, if I remember correctly. > > No, it does not. Nor does it require anything more than is on the system right now. Often, this is sufficient. Sometimes it isn't. The buildkernel version was done to keep people from shooting themselves... I've never used the manual method and almost always use "make buildkernel -DKERNFAST -j4". Is there value in documentation the old method as alternative or are people using it out of habit? -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgkCkOwFqZvvFQQp_zQJsjDsvdDB2Vc=y7biQeHc91k_hw>