Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:12:52 -0500 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: last cvs Makefile.inc1 errors Message-ID: <20031209191252.GA39883@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <20031209181920.GD19222@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20031206171511.GA23158@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> <20031207131034.X7085@carver.gumbysoft.com> <20031207230044.GA6169@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> <20031208180718.GA49355@xor.obsecurity.org> <20031209181920.GD19222@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 10:19:20AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > I've been meaning to ask this for a while... why does everyone recomend: > > make buildworld > make buildkernel > make installkernel > make installworld > vs. > make buildworld > make kernel > make installworld I can think of two reasons: First, the separate steps make it possible to do make reinstallkernel when one does not want to overwrite kernel.old. Second, and this I'm not sure of, it's my recollection that using -jn on installs is either risky or sure trouble. Is make smart enough to ignore -jn on install, or is the makefile smart enough to avoid trouble? -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031209191252.GA39883>