Re: make.conf syntax
Erik Trulsson wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:00:08PM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: Hello all, I believe I used the wrong syntax in my make.conf I used NO_PROFILE="YES" Should I have instead used NO_PROFILE=YES or NO_PROFILE=TRUE It shouldn't matter. Is YES and TRUE and 1 equivalent in this context? Yes, and they are also equivalent to NO or FALSE. The makefiles only check if NO_PROFILE is defined, not what it is defined as. This is true for many other makefile variables as well. Thanks, I've been reading make.conf(5) and so I now understand what you mean. I should have defined a variable for myself before I started, first_step="RTFM" Thanks for everyone's patience, Duane ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf syntax
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:00:08PM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: > Hello all, > > I believe I used the wrong syntax in my make.conf > I used > > NO_PROFILE="YES" > > Should I have instead used > > NO_PROFILE=YES > > or > > NO_PROFILE=TRUE It shouldn't matter. > > > Is YES and TRUE and 1 equivalent in this context? Yes, and they are also equivalent to NO or FALSE. The makefiles only check if NO_PROFILE is defined, not what it is defined as. This is true for many other makefile variables as well. -- Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf syntax
Duane Whitty wrote: Hello all, I believe I used the wrong syntax in my make.conf I used NO_PROFILE="YES" Should I have instead used NO_PROFILE=YES or NO_PROFILE=TRUE Is YES and TRUE and 1 equivalent in this context? Thanks in advance, Duane -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Hi, Sorry for the noise; I answered my own question. Yes, my syntax was wrong. NO_PROFILE takes a bool not a string value. Duane -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf syntax
On Monday 20 March 2006 14:00, Duane Whitty wrote: > Hello all, > > I believe I used the wrong syntax in my make.conf > I used > > NO_PROFILE="YES" > > Should I have instead used > > NO_PROFILE=YES > > or > > NO_PROFILE=TRUE > > > should be: NO_PROFILE=TRUE Beech -- --- Beech Rintoul - Sys. Administrator - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Mangohealth \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | 201 East 9Th Avenue Ste.310 X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Anchorage, AK 99501 / \ - XanGo - http://www.mangohealth.org --- pgpPPYxA4kaIm.pgp Description: PGP signature
make.conf syntax
Hello all, I believe I used the wrong syntax in my make.conf I used NO_PROFILE="YES" Should I have instead used NO_PROFILE=YES or NO_PROFILE=TRUE Is YES and TRUE and 1 equivalent in this context? Thanks in advance, Duane -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
"Colin J. Raven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I was (erroneously) trying to do was trim down the kernel to its > absolute minimum size and maximum performance, my thought was if I don't > need it, don't load it. Which makes sense. "Don't load it" is not the same as "don't build it," though. > I guess the logical question follows > thoughwhy build all those modules (500 and something if I recall > correctly) if they're unused and not necessary? Because the cost of building them is low, and the benefit of having the module when you mistakenly remove something from the kernel that you wanted is high. It's kind of like keeping good backups; most of the bits on my backups wouldn't be needed even if I was restoring from scratch, but it's still a good idea to start with a full backup of *everything*. > It seems counter intuitive somehow, but probably I'm not seeing the > issue in its proper light. It's correct for the kernel itself. You don't need to build most functionality into the kernel unless you're going to use it on every boot. [If you're only going to use it occasionally, and you can load it from a module, you might as well do that.] For a typical desktop user, though, I recommend just building all of the modules all of the time, and not risking being caught without one you need. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
On Feb 4 at 12:55, Lowell Gilbert launched this into the bitstream: > "Colin J. Raven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm considering *not* loading unecessary modules in a new kernel, so I >> need to ask what seems like some dumb questions. >> >> In the kernel config file (MYKERNEL in this case) does commenting out >> stuff there stop some modules from loading? So for example if I comment >> out SCSI support are the relevant modules for that built, or not built >> when compiling the new kernel? It seems that the logical answer is >> "they're not built if you comment them out" yet I have no way of knowing >> if that instinct call is right or not. > > By default, all of the modules are built whether you use them or not. > That has nothing to do with the kernel config file; if you compile an > option directly into the kernel, you don't need to load a module in > order to use that functionality. > >> The second question concerns the make.conf MODULES_OVERRIDE option >> syntax. Is the syntax: > > Don't bother with that option at all; your belief that you need it is > based on your incorrect understanding of what modules (as opposed to > kernel definitions) do. Other than a little bit extra build time, > there's rarely any reason for an ordinary user to *not* build all of > the modules every time. Thank you! Undoubtedly you have saved me a considerable amount of time and apparently unecessary work. What I was (erroneously) trying to do was trim down the kernel to its absolute minimum size and maximum performance, my thought was if I don't need it, don't load it. I guess the logical question follows thoughwhy build all those modules (500 and something if I recall correctly) if they're unused and not necessary? It seems counter intuitive somehow, but probably I'm not seeing the issue in its proper light. Many thanks for your advice and guidance. Regards, -Colin -- Colin J. Raven FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE - http://www.FreeBSD.org - There can be only One Fri Feb 4 19:18:00 CET 2005 7:18PM up 15 days, 8:08, 6 users, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
"Colin J. Raven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm considering *not* loading unecessary modules in a new kernel, so I > need to ask what seems like some dumb questions. > > In the kernel config file (MYKERNEL in this case) does commenting out > stuff there stop some modules from loading? So for example if I comment > out SCSI support are the relevant modules for that built, or not built > when compiling the new kernel? It seems that the logical answer is > "they're not built if you comment them out" yet I have no way of knowing > if that instinct call is right or not. By default, all of the modules are built whether you use them or not. That has nothing to do with the kernel config file; if you compile an option directly into the kernel, you don't need to load a module in order to use that functionality. > The second question concerns the make.conf MODULES_OVERRIDE option > syntax. Is the syntax: Don't bother with that option at all; your belief that you need it is based on your incorrect understanding of what modules (as opposed to kernel definitions) do. Other than a little bit extra build time, there's rarely any reason for an ordinary user to *not* build all of the modules every time. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
make.conf syntax question (MODULES_OERRRIDE)
I'm considering *not* loading unecessary modules in a new kernel, so I need to ask what seems like some dumb questions. In the kernel config file (MYKERNEL in this case) does commenting out stuff there stop some modules from loading? So for example if I comment out SCSI support are the relevant modules for that built, or not built when compiling the new kernel? It seems that the logical answer is "they're not built if you comment them out" yet I have no way of knowing if that instinct call is right or not. The second question concerns the make.conf MODULES_OVERRIDE option syntax. Is the syntax: a) MODULES_OVERRIDE = blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = blah_blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = blah_blah_bluh and so on until every one you want built is listed OR b) MODULES_OVERRIDE = /usr/src/sys/modules/blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = /usr/src/sys/modules/blah_blah MODULES_OVERRIDE = /usr/src/sys/modules/blah_blah_blah OR can it be: d) MODULES_OVERRIDE = module_a module_b module_c etc or finally: e) is there an include syntax with maybe a plain one-module-per-line file that could be inserted. Something like MODULES_OVERRIDE = /path/to/come/include_file.inc with "include_file.inc" having something maybe like this: foo bar goo gar where 'foo', 'bar' etc. are modules Sorry, but syntax is most often my weakest point and why things sometimes don't work the way I expect them to. Regards & TIA, -Colin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
