From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 23 08:46:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E20F16A4B3 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conn.mc.mpls.visi.com (conn.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D3B43FEA for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:46:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hawkeyd@visi.com) Received: from sheol.localdomain (hawkeyd-fw.dsl.visi.com [208.42.101.193]) by conn.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFDBAFDF; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:46:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from hawkeyd@localhost) by sheol.localdomain (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id h8NFkTs00787; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:46:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from hawkeyd) X-Spam-Policy: http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/index.html#mail Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:46:28 -0500 From: D J Hawkey Jr To: Matthew Seaman , questions at FreeBSD Message-ID: <20030923154628.GA723@sheol.localdomain> References: <20030923143226.GA89496@sheol.localdomain> <20030923144513.GA51933@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030923144513.GA51933@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: Something I should know about 'make buildkernel ...', but I don't. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: hawkeyd@visi.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:46:31 -0000 On Sep 23, at 03:45 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:32:26AM -0500, D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > > > > After applying patches, I bump $BRANCH in /sys/conf/newvers.sh, and would > > like the running kernel to reflect the current patchlevel, but not at the > > expense of a complete rebuild. Something this trivial shouldn't get me in > > any trouble, kernel-wise, should it? > > > > Browsing Makefile.inc1, I see these defines: > > -DNOCLEANDIR run ${MAKE} clean, instead of ${MAKE} cleandir > > -DNOCLEAN do not clean at all > > > > Anyway, is it as simple as: > > make buildkernel -DNOCLEAN KERNCONF=... > > So long as you aren't changing the kernel configuration, then you can > probably use the 'old' build mechanism: [SNIP] > However, this is only worth doing if you're going to be recompiling > the kernel a number of times, as the first time through it will > compile everything. Right! Most SAs these days don't effect the kernel. I usually leave /usr/obj populated from the last build. > Note that this won't put the object files > etc. under /usr/obj... Yeah, that's why I didn't want to do the "old" thang. I don't know that it'd even work right. But you seem to agree that something this trivial shouldn't yield a broken kernel if /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/... is unchanged from the previous build, right? Dave -- ______________________ ______________________ \__________________ \ D. J. HAWKEY JR. / __________________/ \________________/\ hawkeyd@visi.com /\________________/ http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/