From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov  9 12:01:16 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id MAA04048
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 12:01:16 -0800
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA04026
          ; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 12:01:04 -0800
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA01736; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 12:56:22 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199511091956.MAA01736@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: config, other kernel build tools
To: gibbs@freefall.FreeBSD.org (Justin T. Gibbs)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 12:56:21 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, current@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199511092016.MAA04909@aslan.cdrom.com> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at Nov 9, 95 12:16:41 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1369      
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> >Anyone else believe config should be in the /usr/src/sys somewhere
> >instead of /usr/src/usr.sbin?
> 
> I think it should go away and we're taking steps to make that happen,
> so why force the move now?

Force?  No one is forcing anything...

I think the code should be in the right location so I can build a
-current kernel on a -stable machine without sacraficing my ability
to build a -stable kernel on the same -stable machine.

> >As it is, I have to clobber my existing config program to build a
> >kernel in an alternate source tree.
> 
> ??  Doesn't that alternate source tree contain an "arch"/conf directory?
> The compile area is created relative to that directory.

My existing config *program*, not my existing *config*.

/usr/sbin/config is *not* created relative to that directory.

I *don't* want to toast my existing /usr/sbin/config; I like it, it
is my friend, it serves me well.

What I'd really like is an incremental step in Richard's planned
mega-makefile patch direction.  Putting the tools that are only good
for building kernels in with the kernel code that is to be built is
a good first step.

It's not like the boot code, etc. isn't already in the kernel tree
and isn't really kernel code proper.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.