On 07/29/2011 11:18 AM, Amarendra Godbole wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gilles Chehade<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:43:52AM +0200, David Vasek wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Amarendra Godbole wrote:
Hi,
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#BldKernel has a section
"Variation on above process: Read-only source tree", which talks about
building a kernel outside src/. Interestingly, when I do a GENERIC.MP
build, by following these steps, the name displayed via config is that
of the directory in which this kernel has been built. Eg.
# cd /home/foo/bar/testbuild
# cp /usr/src/sys/arch/i386/conf/GENERIC.MP .
# config -s /usr/src/sys -b . GENERIC.MP
# make clean&& make depend&& make
# make install
"config -e" displays the kernel string as:
OpenBSD 5.0-beta (testbuild) #2: Fri Jul 29 12:50:00 IST 2011
root@zimbu:/home/foo/bar/testbuild
This may confuse, especially when a "dmesg" is required, as it loses
the type of kernel built - GENERIC or GENERIC.MP.
It loses the arch too. It is not easy to distinguish between i386 and
amd64 then.
Regards,
David
can't you actually do:
# mkdir -p /home/foo/bar/testbuild/`uname -m`/GENERIC.MP
# cd /home/foo/bar/testbuild/`uname -m`/GENERIC.MP
which would keep the arch and kernel name in the build path just as with
a build from the "regular" path ?
Gilles
--
Gilles Chehade
http://u.poolp.org/~gilles/
[...]
Is it possible to update the FAQ to reflect this? Since "cd
/somewhere" does not accurately indicate this, and dmesg then creates
a problem.
-Amarendra
When you build your own kernel, OpenBSD developers have very little
ability to verify you didn't just edit ..../conf/GENERIC in some stupid
way and blow a huge hole in your foot (and potentially a huge hole in
some developers schedule)
We all know that.
We really don't care what the banner line says at that point.
Either someone is going to look at your problem and think, "hm. wonder
if it is yyyy", and see if they can replicate find the error, or they
will say, "wonder why he was rolling his own kernel" and just assume you
broke something.
You want -current? Grab a snapshot.
You want -release? Grab a release.
You want -stable? Build it following the simplest possible directions
(and if -stable has an issue that has anything to do with hw
compatibility or an improved subsystem, you will want to see if you can
replicate the problem on -current anyway).
Building a kernel just for giggles is often a sign that you broke it.
Building a kernel in special ways just increases the odds.
I'll update this section. I think you won't like what I'll do with it,
but I suspect Theo is about to yell at me about why this is in the FAQ,
and this thread pretty well indicates he'll be right to do so.
Nick.
