Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:33:14 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1020630795.b6e403@mired.org> To: "Aragon Gouveia" <aragon@phat.za.net> Cc: <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Build sequence (was Re: mergemaster theory (was: Re:/etc/defaults/rc.conf theory) ) Message-ID: <15566.65418.773606.563032@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <002501c1f084$6e0cda90$01000001@aragon> References: <20020430161355.14FEB5D05@ptavv.es.net> <1020186756.11357.76.camel@lohr.digitalglobe.com> <002501c1f084$6e0cda90$01000001@aragon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <002501c1f084$6e0cda90$01000001@aragon>, Aragon Gouveia <aragon@phat.za.net> typed: > > buildkernel KERNCONF=<KERNEL> > > installkernel KERNCONF=<KERNEL> > > I see most people using this method for doing their kernel > compiles/installs, but I'm still stuck on the old method of: > > config <kern> > cd ../../compile/<kern> > make depend > make > make install > > Am I missing anything from not using the newer method? Yes. What you're doing will use the old world to compile the new kernel, even if you've done a "make buildworld". This doesn't always work. Doing "make kernel" - which does buildkernel then installkernel - will use the binaries in /usr/obj to avoid that problem. The downside is that the /usr/src make targets always do the complete rebuild. If you're working on kernel source, you want to use the "old" method to build the kernel, because you can probably skip the first three steps, and always the first two, after you've changed the source. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. 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?15566.65418.773606.563032>