[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: misc/39454: UPDATE build of amd64 bootcd fails to pick up new kernel
The following reply was made to PR misc/39454; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, misc-bug-people%NetBSD.org@localhost,
Subject: Re: misc/39454: UPDATE build of amd64 bootcd fails to pick up new
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:24:21 +0200 (CEST)
> > Is there a good reason the distrib/amd64/cdrom/ make target needs t=
> > be different from the floppy targets in this respect?
> Yes, because it can't be done at the same time (it has to be run afte=
Also when doing what's done under "build.sh ... release", which
is to construct an ISO image containing the boot loader and the
"fat" INSTALL kernel? I find that somewhat hard to beleive, and
would still expect "dependall" and "release" to do what they do
elsewhere to avoid violating the Principle of Least Astonishment,
not like now that when CDRELEASE is not set, the actual build
*and* installation is done under "make release", and is hidden
from view (actions are performed even though nothing shows up in
the make log!) when MAKEVERBOSE=3D1... Again, POLA violation.
> > And why does not "release" dump the built bits into the
> > appropriate RELEASEDIR subdirectory?
> I think it does, but maybe not when run from the distrib/ dir.
Why would that make a difference?!? If it does, this is yet
another POLA violation.
Main Index |
Thread Index |