On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:59:44AM +0100, Uwe Doering wrote:Loren M. Lang wrote:[...]
3. The handbook seems to suggest to use the config, make, make install procedure for installing the kernel if you have no other reason for not using it, what is the reason for this? (The paragraph immediately following procedure 2)
This sequence takes care that all the modules get installed together with the matching kernel, that a backup of both the kernel and the modules is available (suffix '.old') in case the new kernel doesn't work properly, and it also deals with the system immutable flag ('schg') that protects '/kernel' from being deleted or clobbered by accident. You would have to do all these things by hand if you didn't use the recommended sequence.
I mean why use that procedure over a make buildkernel installkernel, I thought they both did all that.
Well, as far as the result is concerned, both methods are identical. However, if you use the step-by-step procedure the object files remain intact after a kernel build, or at least until you delete them deliberately. So if you then have to make just a minor patch to one of the source files, possibly in the course of a security advisory, 'make' recompiles only the source file that changed.
With the 'buildkernel' target, on the other hand, a complete kernel build takes place, that is, it compiles all source files again, regardless of how small the change you made actually was. This costs considerably more time.
That's why the (selectively executed) step-by-step method makes sense for kernel development work and even the occasional security patch.
Uwe -- Uwe Doering | EscapeBox - Managed On-Demand UNIX Servers [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.escapebox.net _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"