Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:24:25 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, murray.stokely@gmail.com, ru@FreeBSD.org, re@FreeBSD.org, dienst@marcrenearns.de Subject: Re: make buildkernel fails without complete source tree Message-ID: <20070122132425.1527d4b3.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1169489832.11889.64.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <200701171832.28368.dienst@marcrenearns.de> <474078f80701181348q16ceb16bs40ba45b3d7057b83@mail.gmail.com> <20070121212428.GA47379@rambler-co.ru> <200701221111.56264.jhb@freebsd.org> <1169489832.11889.64.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:17:12 -0500
Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 11:11 -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 January 2007 16:24, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:48:14PM -0800, Murray Stokely wrote:
> > > > On 1/18/07, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > >- { " sys", "/usr/src/sys (FreeBSD kernel)",
> > > > >+ { " sys", "/usr/src/sys (FreeBSD kernel; requires
> > > > >'base'
> > > > >to build)",
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a good solution.
> > > >
> > > I don't think this is a good idea as it's not actually required.
> > > The sys/ part have traditionally been standalone. And if you're
> > > not upgrading then "buildkernel" is just a convenience alias for
> > > config/make method. Actually this method is always used except
> > > that in the buildkernel case it will use an upgraded toolchain
> > > if it was previously built by "buildworld".
> >
> > It is required for buildkernel as otherwise there's no Makefile in /usr/src
> > with a buildkernel target. It's only not required if you do 'config, etc.'
> > by hand, but 'make buildkernel' requires some sort of /usr/src/Makefile,
> > obviously. :)
>
> I think that's what Ruslan meant by it having "traditionally been
> standalone". By tradition someone who just extracted the sys stuff
> wasn't expecting to do 'make buildkernel', they expected to do the
> 'config, etc'. For example someone who wanted to build custom kernels
> but had no intention of updating the machine using the source tree, and
> they knew how to build the kernels manually.
>
> The truth is the message should read "(FreeBSD kernel; requires 'base'
> to build if you insist on using 'make buildkernel' in /usr/src to build
> a kernel but if you know how to build a kernel 'manually' then 'base' is
> not required)". But I don't think that fits in 80 columns... :-)
>
> The message as proposed above also begs the question "So why have sys as
> a separate thing if all you can do is look at it?. That's not true but
> it is what the message suggests.
FreeBSD kernel; traditional build mechanism
base; base sources including glue for buildkernel
I'm not sure how the latter one is listed.
--
Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070122132425.1527d4b3.trhodes>