Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:55:31 +0100 From: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src Makefile.inc1 Message-ID: <20010123195531.G253@speedy.gsinet> In-Reply-To: <200101222326.f0MNQJq11102@freefall.freebsd.org>; from jkh@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:26:19PM -0800 References: <200101222326.f0MNQJq11102@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 15:26 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> jkh 2001/01/22 15:26:19 PST
>
> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_4)
> . Makefile.inc1
> Log:
> MFC: kernel time reporting.
Is there a need for config(8) output reporting? That's what I'm
asking myself from reading the latest thread on the subject.
Although buildkernel is the "official" method of building a
kernel, it is said to suffer from information hiding. Will
collecting and summarizing config(8)'s output be easier than
converting all warnings to errors or not suggesting to use the
buildkernel target any longer?
I'm aware that there's not much point in building with a maybe
damaged or dangerous configuration and reporting the problem
afterwards. And admittedly I'm absolutely ignorant when it comes
to the tool chain and build process. But I thought this could be
a quick way of providing the information and yet stick with the
convenient and officially supported target and have the best of
both worlds until a better solution becomes available.
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net
--
If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above
ask your parents or an adult to help you.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010123195531.G253>