Re: make buildkernel fails without complete source tree

--=-255Sk9GV6LSacJklRQsc
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 10:47 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>=20
> > I think that's what Ruslan meant by it having "traditionally been
> > standalone".  By tradition someone who just extracted the sys stuff
> > wasn't expecting to do 'make buildkernel', they expected to do the
> > 'config, etc'.  For example someone who wanted to build custom kernels
> > but had no intention of updating the machine using the source tree, and
> > they knew how to build the kernels manually.
>=20
> True, but that's not even close to being the majority of FreeBSD
> users. Given that we promote 'make buildkernel' as the "proper" way of
> making a kernel, IMO we need to do what is necessary to make it easy
> for users to do that.
>=20

True.  I guess this is sort of where I was headed.  IMHO we should
either leave it as-is for the traditionalists or we should bite the
bullet and stop providing a separate kernel source tree.  As John
pointed out in the message after this one life has moved on and
now /usr/src is teeny compared to the size of disks.  Is it worth the
hassle/confusion to provide just kernel source any more?

--=20
                                                Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to      |       [e-mail]
  there, funny things are everywhere.   |
                      - Theodore Geisel |


--=-255Sk9GV6LSacJklRQsc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBFtQoS/G14VSmup/YRApuUAKCJRJBtv/jm47ghvEvD/Ffwr0aHfwCfcghk
F4I5VtHnEDTYDrcBuJzpCFE=
=tGnK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-255Sk9GV6LSacJklRQsc--