On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:44:51PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 23-Jun-01 Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:23:35PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >> > make buildkernel is rather easy way to work it around: in
> >> > any case object tree is machine-dependent, and one yet
> >> > another directory does not destroy anything. ;|
> >>
> >> The "make buildkernel" approach sucks for incremental
> >> builds, since you are unable to avoid the "config" run
> >> each time, and a lot of unnecessary stuff gets compiled
> >> again because of opt_*.h files whose contents have not
> >> changed (even if you defeat the clean of the compile
> >> directory).
> >
> > About the release process, you are right, it is a bit harder
> > to restart without some tweaks, but the buildkernel target
> > is about as restartable as it can be. (I really don't think
> > anyone would ever advocate skipping the config(8) or
> > the 'make depend' stage..)
>
> Actually, make depend takes a relatively long time, and when
> I'm hacking on a kernel, I don't want to wait 15 minutes to
> build a kernel after changing one file. I compile kernels
> w/o config or make depend a lot.
OK, so if you're really really sure your changes do not affect
the dependency graph, use -DNOKERNELDEPEND :)
G'luck,
Peter
--
This sentence contains exactly threee erors.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
