On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <20100110.001429.173527971.n...@freebsd.org> TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <n...@freebsd.org> writes: : In article <201001081901.o08j1pjc062...@svn.freebsd.org> : "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <b...@freebsd.org> writes: : : > To avoid hardcoding further kernel configuration names for : > make universe, split the logic into two parts: : > - 1st to build worlds and generate kernel configs like LINT. : > - 2nd to build kernels for a given TARGET architecture correctly : > finding all newly generated configs, not knowing anything about : > LINT anymore. (*) : : > +universe_kernels: universe_kernconfs : > +BUILD_ARCH!= uname -p : : Should this be "uname -m"? : : : > +TARGET?= ${BUILD_ARCH} : > +KERNCONFS!= cd ${.CURDIR}/sys/${TARGET}/conf && \ : > + find [A-Z0-9]*[A-Z0-9] -type f -maxdepth 0 \ : > + ! -name DEFAULTS ! -name NOTESYes. Also, the name BUILD_ARCH is misleading, since it corresponds to MACHINE, not to MACHINE_ARCH. it is clear that it is used in the MACHINE context, not the MACHINE_ARCH context. These two are often confused, but many of the embedded platforms have added to the confusion and it is unclear where the sharp dividing line should be here anymore. It used to be separate boot environment, but even that has gotten fuzzy for architectures like mips and arm that boot with a huge variety of boot loaders...
I guess the intial problem I had it from was introduced in r54311 to Makefile.inc1, which nowadays reads like: BUILD_ARCH!= uname -p So, the suggested correction would be: MACHINE!= uname -m I wonder if I should use XMACHINE but that usually means "cross"(building). I could use _MACHINE!= to not confuse it with MACHINE from Makefile.inc1? /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb It will not break if you know what you are doing. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
