Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:09:58 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, doc@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, Murray Stokely <murray.stokely@gmail.com>, re@FreeBSD.org, Marc Ren? Arns <dienst@marcrenearns.de> Subject: Re: make buildkernel fails without complete source tree Message-ID: <20070122190958.GA53027@rambler-co.ru> In-Reply-To: <1169492498.11889.74.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <200701171832.28368.dienst@marcrenearns.de> <474078f80701181348q16ceb16bs40ba45b3d7057b83@mail.gmail.com> <20070121212428.GA47379@rambler-co.ru> <200701221111.56264.jhb@freebsd.org> <1169489832.11889.64.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> <45B506A7.7060909@FreeBSD.org> <1169492498.11889.74.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 02:01:38PM -0500, Ken Smith wrote: > True. I guess this is sort of where I was headed. IMHO we should > either leave it as-is for the traditionalists or we should bite the > bullet and stop providing a separate kernel source tree. As John > pointed out in the message after this one life has moved on and > now /usr/src is teeny compared to the size of disks. Is it worth the > hassle/confusion to provide just kernel source any more? > Thinking of embedded world, it still makes a lot of sense. I think adding a note to Handbook would be a good solution. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFtQwGqRfpzJluFF4RAiLQAKCJWpoFnlr9KSyyX8k/dFwwTT4omgCgmMw8 m2UGLXqhOlfsbB/Rc1D+PmY= =T3k1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070122190958.GA53027>