From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Mar 22 6:49:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [212.66.1.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76FA37B720 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 06:49:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA86223; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:49:44 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:49:44 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200103221449.PAA86223@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: proper way to make kernel... In-Reply-To: <20010321205923.A1882@student.uu.se> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.5.4-20000523 ("1959") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.1-RELEASE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Erik Trulsson wrote: > And besides, the former (using KERNCONF) *is* the preferred way to > compile a kernel. Why? I think it's only preferred (and even required) when you do a make world. If you just changed something in your kernel config file and then build a new one (maybe without even having /usr/src except for sys), then the standard way to do it is the usual "config, make depend, make, make install". Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream" (E. A. Poe) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message