[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: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
To: 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, 3 Sep 2008 21:48:49 +0200
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:34:30PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > To make is clear; here is what happens:
> > - 'make distribution' builds from sources, and update binairies in
> > $DESTDIR,
> > and builds INSTALL kernels/ramdisks/boot media. This may include
> > bootable
> > iso images without binary sets.
> > - 'make release' takes whatever is in $DESTDIR and build the release bits
> > from it. It won't attempts to rebuild outdated binairies from sources.
> > - 'make iso_image' takes whatever is in $RELEASEDIR and makes a
> > (possibly bootable) iso image from it.
> > You have to go though these 3 steps in order to have an updated from
> > sources
> > iso image with binary sets.
> Yes, I'm well aware of that, but that's not what started this
> discussion. I was asking for "how do I produce the boot-CD ISO images
> with minimal expenditure of resources", and doing a full build does not
> count as "minimal expenditure of resources" in my book.
> I wanted to replicate what's done under "build.sh ... release". The ISO
> images which come out from this typically only contain a bootloader and
> a "fat" INSTALL kernel, i.e. one with an embedded ramdisk with all the
> install tools.
> Such a method would be needed when repeatedly testing out fixes to the
> kernel, and making a new boot-CD ISO image to try out the new INSTALL
> I think I've now understood that at least the lack of any output under
> MAKEVERBOSE=1 in distrib/amd64/cdroms/ when doing "make release"
> seriously threw me off course, as well as the "do nothing under
> dependall, do everything under release" Makefile setup, both of them
> serious and as far as I can see completely unneccessary POLA violations!
Actually, the "do nothing under dependall, do everything under release" part
can't easily be avoided; because distrib/ isn't self-contained. It depends
on 'dependall' having being run over the whole tree to work.
I'm not sure why MAKEVERBOSE=1 doens't work; the commands do show up in my
make log even without MAKEVERBOSE=1.
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
Main Index |
Thread Index |