Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:14:50 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: last cvs Makefile.inc1 errors Message-ID: <p06002040bbfbcb6d10ff@[128.113.24.47]> 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
At 10:19 AM -0800 12/9/03, 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 For me, it's mainly a dumb reason. I have had 'make' fail during the 'installkernel' phase (not often, but it happens). I tend to fix a problem and then blindly re-enter my most-recent make command. If that was 'make kernel', then I end up rebuilding the kernel when I didn't need to. Also, it gives me a breakdown of where the time is going. So I can tell if it's going to 'buildkernel' vs 'installkernel'. Also, occasionally I have written updates to 'installkernel'. At one time I had an update to install the debug-version of a kernel in a different directory (on a separate partition), when I had a problem with the root partition running out of space. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06002040bbfbcb6d10ff>