On Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:58 +0200, J Wunsch wrote:
We are, but why would we use anything else than GENERIC for it,
seriously? I'd never roll a `release' for my current machine.
When you get commitment to a fixed hardware configuration for two years
and you want to leave your datacenter
J Wunsch wrote:
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't anyone but me and Walnut Creek cum BSDI cum Windriver
Systems using make release?!?
We are, but why would we use anything else than GENERIC for it,
seriously? I'd never roll a `release' for my current machine.
Examples
tlambert2 Examples abound:
All of examples are just we want yet another *generic* kernel for
specific machines.
Why you don't replace src/sys/${arch}/conf/GENERIC file to your own
(customized) version? It is too simple, and matches your requirements.
-- -
Makoto `MAR' MATSUSHITA
To
On Fri, 04 May 2001 20:38:06 +0900, Makoto MATSUSHITA wrote:
All of examples are just we want yet another *generic* kernel for
specific machines.
Why you don't replace src/sys/${arch}/conf/GENERIC file to your own
(customized) version? It is too simple, and matches your requirements.
On 04-May-01 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:58 +0200, J Wunsch wrote:
We are, but why would we use anything else than GENERIC for it,
seriously? I'd never roll a `release' for my current machine.
When you get commitment to a fixed hardware configuration for two years
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, I don't think that the release should pick up KERNCONF. I
think a middle-ground option is to have the release pick up
RELEASE_KERNCONF.
That sounds best to me.
--
cheers, Jorg .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
Hello?
I thought I had defended the reasons for my wanting the patch
so that the KERNCONF in /usr/src/release/Makefile actually
worked with sysinstall well enough that the patch should be
committed...
I haven't seen a commit go by... any chance of that change
being committed?
It doesn't really
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't anyone but me and Walnut Creek cum BSDI cum Windriver
Systems using make release?!?
We are, but why would we use anything else than GENERIC for it,
seriously? I'd never roll a `release' for my current machine.
--
cheers, Jorg .-.-.
On Fri, 4 May 2001, J Wunsch wrote:
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't anyone but me and Walnut Creek cum BSDI cum Windriver
Systems using make release?!?
We are, but why would we use anything else than GENERIC for it,
seriously? I'd never roll a `release' for my current
