From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Dec 15 1:33:43 2000 From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 15 01:33:40 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (pcwin002.win.tue.nl [131.155.71.72]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6349737B400 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BB3BE134AA; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:30:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:30:11 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop To: Warner Losh Cc: Kal Torak , FreeBSD-stable Subject: Re: new kernel build method? Message-ID: <20001215103011.B58274@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <3A390FFF.CD3370E6@quake.com.au> <200012142110.OAA50431@harmony.village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200012142110.OAA50431@harmony.village.org>; from imp@village.org on Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 02:10:18PM -0700 Sender: stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 02:10:18PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <3A390FFF.CD3370E6@quake.com.au> Kal Torak writes: > : But what is the old method? Is the old method doing: > : cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf > : /usr/bin/config KERNEL-NAME > : cd ../../compile/KERNEL-NAME > : make dep ^^^ as someone already said, this should be 'make depend' > : make > : make install This is indeed the old method. > : > : Are we meant to be doing it from /usr/src using: > : make buildkernel KERNEL=KERNEL-NAME > : make installkernel KERNEL=KERNEL-NAME This is the "Officially Sanctioned Update Procedure". > If you are upgrading from one version of FreeBSD to another (even on > the same branch), you should be useing the new method. If you are > building and rebuilding the kernel alot on the same version, then the > old way is a little faster. Plus, using the old way you can get rid of /usr/obj, which is a bonus for machines with small disks like firewalls. Yes, it should have enough disk, but it *is* taking up space, and it is a bit weird to have essentially *2* base systems installed on one box, just to be able to build a kernel. I like the new build/installkernel targets, and I use them on the machines I reinstall every month or so, but I do think there are more reasons for using the old method than people realize. I actually read through the threads on -stable from last july again, following the original HEADS UP from Kris Kennaway. In Message-ID , Kris says regarding make buildkernel, "Get into the habit of using it for every kernel build you do." I realize people can shoot themselves in the foot the old way, like in the instance of a binutils/gcc change, but how often does that happen? But then again, I don't have to "support" lots of people so why am I whining :) --Stijn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message