Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:46:02 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: undergra <undergra@vallesnet.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: KERNEL vs KERNCONF Message-ID: <XFMail.010312174602.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <01cc01c0ab58$59adad80$0164a8c0@daemon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13-Mar-01 undergra wrote: > hi i see the changes between FreeBSD 4.2 and FreeBSD 4.3 BETA. > > one question about .... > > "The "make buildkernel" procedure has changed slightly. It now gets > the name of the configuration(s) to build from the KERNCONF variable > (KERNEL is still valid, but deprecated). " > > why deprecated? Because KERNEL already has other meanings, and some of them conflicted with this meaning. This meaning was the newer one, so we changed it. Granted, it is more of a problem in -current than in -stable, which is why you haven't seen lots of clammering about it on the -stable list. > what are the advantages of calling KERNEL o KERNCONF to that variable? KERNEL is already defined to the name of the kernel (usually kernel, but possible kernel.GGENERIC for GENERIC kernels, etc.) in the kernel build makefiles, and this other meaning of the name caused conflicts. The change is unfortunate, but not changing it results in much more confusion. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010312174602.jhb>