Please correct me if I am wrong... but I thought that if the same source and make file etc. was used, the kernel that was used to build it is irrelevant, i.e. the same version of gcc running or newer and older version of kernel should ultimately 'spit out' the same binary, given the same source, makefile, etc.?? No?
BTW, `make build` has been completed, on the new kernel, new userland, without errors. 2007/3/10, STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
No, when things don't work, its MUCH more common that you messed something up, rather than a flag day or the developers messing up. ;-) Seriously, when I started compiling stuff I made all sorts of mistakes. I quickly learned that the vast majority of blunders were mine and mine alone. "Flag days" typically have notices put in misc@, and the FAQ. They don't happen that often. That the make build didn't get any errors is all well and good, but errors could still lurk. One example could be the 'ps' program: if the kernel data structures changed, ps may well have to be modified to deal with them. Having a mis-match between kernel and userland would then cause ps to do strange things. Thats one example, and it happened to me some time ago when I thought I could skip building a new kernel. If I am understanding you correctly, you've built userland on the older kernel, and are now building the kernel. This is backwards, and might work, but it isn't 'right'. Some would say "You're on your own", not doing things the documented way. If you have another system to play on I'd suggest doing everything over again. It's late (or very early) where I am so I am off now. --STeve Andre' On Saturday 10 March 2007 04:03:20 Sunnz wrote: > Oh of course, I did a `make clean` in > /usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP/ and /usr/src and `rm -rf > /usr/obj/*` before I start rebuild the kernel, userland. > > 2007/3/10, Sunnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Very well thanks for the explanation that's very kind of you. :) > > > > So essentially if things does not work, this could be a "flag day" and > > I could get a snapshot of compiled -stable userland somewhere? > > > > Maybe a more fundamental question... `make build` did not have any > > errors when it was done under the older kernel, so the userland should > > have been already been built have they? (Which means it should now be > > running stable kernel with stable userland.) > > > > Anyway, I have just rebuild the stable kernel, and if the my > > assumption above is true, then now I have just build the stable kernel > > with stable userland running on a stable kernel? > > > > Now I have rebooted again, running the kernel I just have built, and > > now running `make build` again... but now it is a bit different, since > > I am already on stable userland. (still waiting for it to finish.) > > > > 2007/3/10, STeve Andre' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 03:25:16 Sunnz wrote: > > > > Excuse me if this sounds rude, but can you be a bit more precise > > > > about "Yes, kernel- and user-land want to be in sync.". > > > > > > > > I mean, I have read the FAQ, it says -stable userland and packages > > > > must run on a -stable kernel... which is what I have now, I am > > > > running -stable userland on -stable kernel. > > > > > > > > But the part I want to fix/clarify here is the process of building > > > > the userland. Must -stable userland build by a -stable kernel? I have > > > > tried to build -stable userland with a -stable kernel, which crashed > > > > the system. The userland has already been build now with a -release > > > > kernel; and I have booted the system using -stable kernel, so it is > > > > indeed in sync as now. > > > > > > You aren't being rude--I was being imprecise. > > > > > > The kernel- and user-land are seperate parts, but need to be > > > "in sync", meaning that when kernel changes are made, those > > > changes can affect userland, so the two need to be updated > > > together. When you compile a new kernel and boot with that > > > you are out of sync, but normally works. When it doesn't the > > > developers call a "flag day", meaning that you may have to > > > get a new snapshot of the system and use that, rather than > > > compile. This doesn't happen that often, though. > > > > > > In your case, you compiled a new -stable kernel but found > > > that it didn't work when compiling userland. Compiling the > > > newer userland with the older kernel seems to have worked > > > for you, but you don't really know--not really. In your case > > > you might well be OK, but I'd be hesitant to run something > > > production on it. I'd try the process again and figure out > > > what you did wrong. > > > > > > I hope I wrote something readable this time. ;-) > > > > > > --STeve Andre' > > > > -- > > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. > > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
