On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:27:06 -0400 John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 June 2006 13:09, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060620 13:31] wrote: > > > On Tuesday 20 June 2006 14:53, David O'Brien wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:43:00PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > > > Personally, I was debating on just removing most of the > > > > > world target with just a message: > > > > > > > > > > "The world target has been replaced with the buildworld target." > > > > > > > > No! > > > > > > > > 'make world' is still my normal building process. Why force > > > > "make buildworld && make installworld"?? > > > > > > > > I don't care how undocumented it is, or obfusacted > > > > 'HISTORICAL_MAKE_WORLD' is; but please leave them alone! > > > > > > > > thanks for your attention. > > > > > > You can already get that via 'make DESTDIR=/ world' you know. :) And > that's > > > shorter to type. > > > > I think I'm missing something. > > > > Is the only difference between "make world" and: > > > > "make buildworld buildkernel installkernel installworld" > > > > That make world has the order of installs flipped? > > No, make world doesn't include the kernel stuff at all, and the "supported" > order (read, if you do it different that's fine, just don't ask for help if > you break something :) is to do buildworld, buildkernel, installkernel, > reboot into single user mode, installworld. Of course, you can just do make kernel after the build, it cuts off a step. But I wouldn't advise if you plan on keeping world elsewhere. :) -- Tom Rhodes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
