make buildkernel fails without complete source tree

[Ken Smith]

On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 10:47 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
> 
> > I think that's what Ruslan meant by it having "traditionally been
> > standalone".  By tradition someone who just extracted the sys stuff
> > wasn't expecting to do 'make buildkernel', they expected to do the
> > 'config, etc'.  For example someone who wanted to build custom kernels
> > but had no intention of updating the machine using the source tree, and
> > they knew how to build the kernels manually.
> 
> True, but that's not even close to being the majority of FreeBSD
> users. Given that we promote 'make buildkernel' as the "proper" way of
> making a kernel, IMO we need to do what is necessary to make it easy
> for users to do that.
> 

True.  I guess this is sort of where I was headed.  IMHO we should
either leave it as-is for the traditionalists or we should bite the
bullet and stop providing a separate kernel source tree.  As John
pointed out in the message after this one life has moved on and
now /usr/src is teeny compared to the size of disks.  Is it worth the
hassle/confusion to provide just kernel source any more?

-- 
                                                Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to      |       kensmith at cse.buffalo.edu
  there, funny things are everywhere.   |
                      - Theodore Geisel |

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/attachments/20070122/1dab8e6b/attachment-0001.sig>