Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:47:03 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: re@freebsd.org, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, Murray Stokely <murray.stokely@gmail.com>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>, doc@freebsd.org, Marc Ren? Arns <dienst@marcrenearns.de> Subject: Re: make buildkernel fails without complete source tree Message-ID: <45B506A7.7060909@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
Ken Smith wrote:
> 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.
True, but that's not even close to being the majority of FreeBSD
users. Given that we promote 'make buildkernel' as the "proper" way of
making a kernel, IMO we need to do what is necessary to make it easy
for users to do that.
And so it goes,
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45B506A7.7060909>