Re: old style kernel configuration
Hi! On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:38:58PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: # make buildkernel ... KERNFAST=1 Is it documented somewhere? I was using NO_CLEAN=1. -- Jeremie Le Hen Scientists say the world is made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. They forgot to mention Morons. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: Hi! On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:38:58PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: # make buildkernel ... KERNFAST=1 Is it documented somewhere? I was using NO_CLEAN=1. Yep, build(7). -- Mateusz Guzik mjguzik gmail.com ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
and - what are the man differences between the old and new ways. and it is starting to turn into a flame/bikeshed. i just don't see what's wrong in SIMPLE procedure that just use existing C compiler and just sys sources Thanks for the information. I'll restore the documentation with updated information shortly. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
I do buy the argument that B is simpler than A, despite the fact that B requires more commands than A. B can be thought-of as simpler because I only have to memorize three things to get a kernel: (1) start with a config file, (2) run config with said file (3) follow the instructions that config gives me. Meanwhile, in comparison, A requires the memorization of different and arguably less accessible information. there is one other argument - why removing something that is fine? and once again - i do keep only /usr/src/sys on most machines. and update it WHEN i decide to my own way. Is doing something your own way instead of the only right (which actually results in more load to FreeBSD.org servers) bad now? i always though unix is flexible and there is no the only right way. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
For new/non-advanced users, this shouldn't necessarily be exposed except as an implementation detail and a historical artifact; more why? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On 23 November 2012 12:48, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: For new/non-advanced users, this shouldn't necessarily be exposed except as an implementation detail and a historical artifact; more Lets kill this thread now. I have the answers to - should we keep the documentation and - what are the man differences between the old and new ways. and it is starting to turn into a flame/bikeshed. Thanks for the information. I'll restore the documentation with updated information shortly. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On 11/22/12 1:17 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? For new/non-advanced users, this shouldn't necessarily be exposed except as an implementation detail and a historical artifact; more directions, not less serve to confuse the masses - see git as a perfect example of this with all of its workflows. I think the question that should be asked first is: who's your target audience (remember, hackers are generally the more and not less advanced target audience)? Once this question can be answered, I think it would become apparent either to you and other reviewers what the text should say. The canonical way to build a kernel on its own is using config(8). The Makefile acts as a convenient wrapper for this when you want to make a kernel as part of a build, or to redo a kernel that was a part of a build. nearly all kernel developers I know use the config method, and it's widly known and documented. it is however a good way to get mismatching kernel and userland but that's not what we are discussing. Julian Thanks, Garrett ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
Julian writes: it is however a good way to get mismatching kernel and userland but that's not what we are discussing. The method recommended on http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig-building.html # make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL is also a good way to get mismatching kernel and userland. Or any other way of building just the kernel rather than everything. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, Eitan Adler wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? why should i do make buildkernel when not cross compiling? i always use config ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
Value: ability to embed entire config (comments and all) into the kernel value 2: simplicity. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? I suppose it makes less difference on a modern system where make buildkernel takes 15 minutes or even less, but the manual kernel build gives the opportunity to rebuild a kernel without building everything --- as in the case where you just modified something simple (say USB or PCI device IDs). I'm not talking about the dedicate kernel developer who should know things like this, but the user who makes these kernel modifications occasionally. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:35:57AM -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? I suppose it makes less difference on a modern system where make buildkernel takes 15 minutes or even less, but the manual kernel build gives the opportunity to rebuild a kernel without building everything --- as in the case where you just modified something simple (say USB or PCI device IDs). I'm not talking about the dedicate kernel developer who should know things like this, but the user who makes these kernel modifications occasionally. # make buildkernel ... KERNFAST=1 -- Mateusz Guzik mjguzik gmail.com ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On 22 Nov 2012 16:26, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: Value: ability to embed entire config (comments and all) into the kernel value 2: simplicity. How is it simpler? Chris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
How is it simpler? Chris strange question i thought it is obviously clear. $EDITOR config config kernel cd ../compile/kernel make depend make make install that's all. and no need to keep whole /usr/src, just sys what is wrong in it? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On 22 Nov 2012 18:56, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: How is it simpler? Chris strange question i thought it is obviously clear. $EDITOR config config kernel cd ../compile/kernel make depend make make install that's all. and no need to keep whole /usr/src, just sys what is wrong in it? I was only confused because you had asserted that six commands was simpler-- Now you point out that you don't keep a src tree, paired with freebsd-update it is be a good combination for custom kernels :) Thank you for clarifying. Chris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
I was only confused because you had asserted that six commands was simpler-- Now you point out that you don't keep a src tree, paired with freebsd-update it is be a good combination for custom kernels :) Thank you for clarifying. this is not a discussion. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Chris Rees wrote: On 22 Nov 2012 18:56, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: How is it simpler? Chris strange question i thought it is obviously clear. $EDITOR config config kernel cd ../compile/kernel make depend make make install that's all. and no need to keep whole /usr/src, just sys what is wrong in it? I was only confused because you had asserted that six commands was simpler-- I can relate to Mr Puchar's vantage point. It's not the number of commands, it's the pathos. Memorizing how to configure a custom kernel, one can memorize two different pathos: === A === I have to make a config file I have to use the make(1) utility within a full src-tree to produce the kernel from that config I can't remember the arguments to make === B === I have to make a config file I have to use the config(1) utility on my config file The config(1) utility tells me what to do after I run it, I do what config(1) tells me == In both A and B, we start with a config file. Things differ from there. I do buy the argument that B is simpler than A, despite the fact that B requires more commands than A. B can be thought-of as simpler because I only have to memorize three things to get a kernel: (1) start with a config file, (2) run config with said file (3) follow the instructions that config gives me. Meanwhile, in comparison, A requires the memorization of different and arguably less accessible information. One might even be able to argue that the pathos of B is simpler because it relies on a purpose-built tool (config(1)) to get you where you want to be versus a multi-purpose tool (make(1)). Just my tuppence. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? For new/non-advanced users, this shouldn't necessarily be exposed except as an implementation detail and a historical artifact; more directions, not less serve to confuse the masses - see git as a perfect example of this with all of its workflows. I think the question that should be asked first is: who's your target audience (remember, hackers are generally the more and not less advanced target audience)? Once this question can be answered, I think it would become apparent either to you and other reviewers what the text should say. Thanks, Garrett ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
old style kernel configuration
I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. I always build kernels with config(1) because it allows me to embed the _entire_ kernel config into the kernel (by using the -C option to config(1)). Otherwise, if I rely only on the INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE parameter, the comments are stripped from my config prior to embedding (and this is undesirable and thus why we always configure our kernel by executing config -C -g configname). Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? Value: ability to embed entire config (comments and all) into the kernel Maybe this difference/value should be documented. -- Devin _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On 11/21/2012 8:21 PM, Devin Teske wrote: On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. I always build kernels with config(1) because it allows me to embed the _entire_ kernel config into the kernel (by using the -C option to config(1)). Otherwise, if I rely only on the INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE parameter, the comments are stripped from my config prior to embedding (and this is undesirable and thus why we always configure our kernel by executing config -C -g configname). Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? Value: ability to embed entire config (comments and all) into the kernel Maybe this difference/value should be documented. Maybe it makes sense to add INCLUDE_ENTIRE_CONFIG_FILE? Bryan ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On 11/21/12 5:58 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? I still do it quite often ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: old style kernel configuration
On 21 November 2012 23:52, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote: On 11/21/12 5:58 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: I've been working on removing obsolete information various documents. While going through older articles I noticed a few references to the old style kernel configuration involving running config(1) manually. Is there any value in keeping this documented as an alternative to make buildkernel or should it be treated as an implementation detail? I still do it quite often Could you explain why? I think I will keep the documentation but I want to update it with some explanation of when one wants to use the old method. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
