Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>