On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Andrew Brown wrote:

> >Assuming you're running your source, "make includes" will do this too.
> 
> well...yes.  but that'd "update" a lot of includes, and i just wanted
> to update the essential ones.  you know...to minimize the amount of
> stuff that would actually have to be rebuilt.

My experience has been that it only installs new files (which is why I
said "assuming you're running your source).

> <musing where=outloud>
> it'd be kinda nice if the installer could check each file to see if it
> had actually be updated before actually installing new copies and
> stomping all over the modification times.  kinda like the way that
> config builds the little opt_foo.h files for the kernel.  :)
> </musing>

As I said, that's how it behaves for me. Sorry it doesn't do that for you.

> >They can be re-arranged. As long as you've installed no programs which use
> >the new syscalls, you'll never notice they're there or not there. :-)
> 
> well...it *was* kinda nice to build a silly little program to use my
> new system call and see it core before i rebooted but not core after i
> rebooted.  :)
> 
> but maybe i'm just too much of a geek?

No you're not. :-)

As nothing in the boot process needed the new syscall to boot, you were
fine doing the kernel and libc at the same time. :-)

Oh, I've forgotten if it was on your instructions or not, but whenever you
add a new syscall, you should bump the minor #.

Take care,

Bill