>> >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).

ah, ok.  i am indeed "running my source", but i only update it rarely,
if ever.  indeed,the last update i did was via source from 1.2G to
1.3H.

>> <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.

it probably does, but i didn't try it.  i didn't want to have to
rebuild everything if it didn't do what i wanted...

>> >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 #.

oh...yeah.  true.  i guess those instructions on the web page *are* a
little sparse, aren't they?

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."