On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 11:56:32AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> + make buildkernel installkernel KERNEL="NAME_OF_YOUR_KERNEL"
You should skip the "KERNEL=..." part. buildkernel and installkernel use
KERNEL for *everything* - including the filename of the new kernel. In other
words:
root@nathan# ls -l / | grep '^-'
[.profile, .cshrc, COPYRIGHT]
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 2130036 5 Mär 18:00 kernel
root@nathan# make buildkernel KERNEL=UE && make installkernel KERNEL=UE
[several minutes later]
root@nathan# ls -l / | grep '^-'
[.profile, .cshrc, COPYRIGHT]
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 2130036 7 Mär 19:39 UE
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 2130036 5 Mär 18:00 kernel
And upon reboot, the system will boot /kernel, not /UE. 4.0-current as of
05-MAR-2000.
"make buildkernel" and "make installkernel" use GENERIC and kernel for the
config file and the filename of the kernel. UPDATING should only contain
this basic version. BTW, make buildkernel KERNEL=GENERIC;make installkernel
KERNEL=GENERIC installs /GENERIC :(
The big question: Is it a bug or is it a feature? Being able to create
a kernel without messing with your existing kernel is an important feature
for large installations: A dedicated build server could create WEBKERNEL,
MAILKERNEL, FIREWALLKERNEL, SCSIKERNEL, IDEKERNEL etc. to be used by other
machines.
On the other hand, a lot of people will small/one-machine installations
will wonder just why their new kernel doesn't work as expected. And yes,
I've been there...
/s/Udo (working on a possible solution for this problem)
--
Eat the rich -- the poor are tough and stringy.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
