Re: misc/39454: UPDATE build of amd64 bootcd fails to pick up new kernel

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > > Is there a good reason the distrib/amd64/cdrom/ make target needs to
> > > 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 after
> > release).
> 
> 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?

No, this one is built as part of 'release', I think.

> 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=1...  Again, POLA violation.

I think they do. I can't see why it wouldn't work for a cdboot.
Reading the makefiles, I think it should always copy the updated binaries;
even if they didn't change. The make targets don't correspond to created
files.

> 
> > > 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?!?

Because the bits to do it is in src/etc/ ?

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--