Subject: Re: Kernel compilation fails
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.org>
From: Alan Barrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/03/2003 18:15:00
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003, Allen Briggs wrote:
> Actually, I think the instructions should be something like (abbreviated):
> * Use build.sh to build new tools
> * Use new tools to build new kernel
> * Back up old kernel
> * Install new kernel
> * Boot new kernel
> * Rebuild the rest of the system
I like to minimise the time that I run a new kernel with old userland,
because some applications (such as ipfilter and kmem grovellers)
don't work properly in that situation. So I recommend building the
entire system (using "build.sh release") before installing the new
kernel. Then you can quickly install the new system from the tarballs,
minimising the time that kernel and userland are mismatched.
Contrary to what Bill Simpson said, I don't know of any reason why it
should make any difference which of kernel or userland is built first
(provided that you are using tools created by build.sh or equivalent,
and DESTDIR != "/"). Sure, there are sometimes bugs, but they usually
get fixed when reported.
> Right now, it's the older compiler that's tripping people up because
> the old compiler had bugs that the kernel sources worked around. The
> newer compiler doesn't have the bugs, the kernel sources have been
> updated to remove the work-arounds, and the old compiler is exposed.
Right. The complaint that started this thread was from somebody who was
trying to use a non-TOOLS compiler to build the kernel.
--apb (Alan Barrett)