NetBSD-Bugs archive

[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 <>
To: Havard Eidnes <>
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 It won't attempts to rebuild outdated binairies from sources.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 " ... 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
 > kernel.
 > 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 <>
      NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index