Subject: Re: updating, build and install order
To: NetBSD current list <current-users@netbsd.org>
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
List: current-users
Date: 06/21/2003 13:03:02
Robert Elz wrote:
> That's not true - or rather, is partially true.   The order is netbsd
> netbsd.old then onetbsd (with .gz versions of each tried as well).
> 
Thank you, I wasn't aware of that....  It's amazing the tidbits that 
have accrued. 


> Personally I much prefer not having any automater procedure scribbing on
> my netbsd.old which I maintain as a known good version - if I make a new
> kernel to replace an old one that has problems, I really don't want the
> old one with problems becoming netbsd.old (though becoming onetbsd is not
> so bad,so it is still there for a while if needed).
> 
So, the behaviour in "make install" is good, and matches "Tracking 
Current", but the behaviour in "NetBSD Documentation: Kernel" needs 
revision to match?  And a lot more explanation.


> ps: I prefer to install my kernel into /netbsd.$((`cat version` - 1))
> (assuming I'm in the build directory), and then
>         ln -f /netbsd.$((`cat version` - 1)) netbsd
> (or the equivalent of that).   That way the dmesg output from the boot can
> immediately be linked to the /netbsd.N file booted - even months later, and
> I can easily step backwards 1, 2, 3, 4, ... versions (until / starts to
> run out of space and I delete the ones that are no longer useful).

And I personally type the date netbsd.yymmdd :-)  

I like this, in theory.  It has a lot of advantages for debugging, 
especially current, when there are frequent system updates.
-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32