On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:43:42PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > ... > > I suppose there's probably some way to arrange things so the KERNCONF > > specification in /etc/src.conf has one value during "buildkernel" and a > > different value during "inistallkernel" -- but ... seriously...??!? > > One could do some ugly things with .make() to change the default based on > the target being invoked (kind of like folks storing port options in > /etc/make.conf conditional on the current directory), but that would be > hackish.
Right; "hackish" is probably a bit ... kinder than what came to mind. :-} > > Wouldn't it be cleaner to have different variables (e.g., that could > > each default to the KERNCONF specification, but could be overridden in > > a simple text file that doesn't require delving into make(1) arcana to > > craft or understand)? > > I think having separate variables is fine, and I think your suggestion of > KERNCONF_BUILD and KERNCONF_INSTALL that default to KERNCONF would be > fine. From the thread, I think it would mean you would need to use the > two settings in your /etc/src.conf but that other folks wanting to install > both would just stick with KERNCONF, correct? That is my understanding, yes. I don't mind tweaking things a bit for an uncommon case; I'd rather avoid twisting my mind into a pretzel to do something that's been quite easy historically. :-) > ... > > Would that work? It seems as if that would work for my case. > > Yes. I think that is also simpler than having a new WITH/WITHOUT variable > to control how installkernel treats KERNCONF. > .... Yay...! :-) Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill da...@catwhisker.org Those who would murder in the name of God or prophet are blasphemous cowards. See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.
Description: PGP signature