> No, when things don't work, its MUCH more common that you
> messed something up, rather than a flag day or the developers
> messing up. ;-) Seriously, when I started compiling stuff I made
> all sorts of mistakes. I quickly learned that the vast majority of
> blunders were mine and mine alone.
>
> "Flag days" typically have notices put in misc@, and the FAQ.
> They don't happen that often.
>
> That the make build didn't get any errors is all well and good,
> but errors could still lurk. One example could be the 'ps'
> program: if the kernel data structures changed, ps may well
> have to be modified to deal with them. Having a mis-match
> between kernel and userland would then cause ps to do
> strange things. Thats one example, and it happened to me
> some time ago when I thought I could skip building a new
> kernel.
>
> If I am understanding you correctly, you've built userland
> on the older kernel, and are now building the kernel. This is
> backwards, and might work, but it isn't 'right'. Some would
> say "You're on your own", not doing things the documented
> way.
>
> If you have another system to play on I'd suggest doing
> everything over again. It's late (or very early) where I am
> so I am off now.
>
> --STeve Andre'
>
> On Saturday 10 March 2007 04:03:20 Sunnz wrote:
> > Oh of course, I did a `make clean` in
> > /usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP/ and /usr/src and `rm -rf
> > /usr/obj/*` before I start rebuild the kernel, userland.
> >
> > 2007/3/10, Sunnz <sunnzy@gmail.com>:
> > > Very well thanks for the explanation that's very kind of you. :)
> > >
> > > So essentially if things does not work, this could be a "flag day" and
> > > I could get a snapshot of compiled -stable userland somewhere?
> > >
> > > Maybe a more fundamental question... `make build` did not have any
> > > errors when it was done under the older kernel, so the userland should
> > > have been already been built have they? (Which means it should now be
> > > running stable kernel with stable userland.)
> > >
> > > Anyway, I have just rebuild the stable kernel, and if the my
> > > assumption above is true, then now I have just build the stable kernel
> > > with stable userland running on a stable kernel?
> > >
> > > Now I have rebooted again, running the kernel I just have built, and
> > > now running `make build` again... but now it is a bit different, since
> > > I am already on stable userland. (still waiting for it to finish.)
> > >
> > > 2007/3/10, STeve Andre' <andres@msu.edu>:
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2007 03:25:16 Sunnz wrote:
> > > > > Excuse me if this sounds rude, but can you be a bit more precise
> > > > > about "Yes, kernel- and user-land want to be in sync.".
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean, I have read the FAQ, it says -stable userland and packages
> > > > > must run on a -stable kernel... which is what I have now, I am
> > > > > running -stable userland on -stable kernel.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the part I want to fix/clarify here is the process of building
> > > > > the userland. Must -stable userland build by a -stable kernel? I have
> > > > > tried to build -stable userland with a -stable kernel, which crashed
> > > > > the system. The userland has already been build now with a -release
> > > > > kernel; and I have booted the system using -stable kernel, so it is
> > > > > indeed in sync as now.
> > > >
> > > > You aren't being rude--I was being imprecise.
> > > >
> > > > The kernel- and user-land are seperate parts, but need to be
> > > > "in sync", meaning that when kernel changes are made, those
> > > > changes can affect userland, so the two need to be updated
> > > > together. When you compile a new kernel and boot with that
> > > > you are out of sync, but normally works. When it doesn't the
> > > > developers call a "flag day", meaning that you may have to
> > > > get a new snapshot of the system and use that, rather than
> > > > compile. This doesn't happen that often, though.
> > > >
> > > > In your case, you compiled a new -stable kernel but found
> > > > that it didn't work when compiling userland. Compiling the
> > > > newer userland with the older kernel seems to have worked
> > > > for you, but you don't really know--not really. In your case
> > > > you might well be OK, but I'd be hesitant to run something
> > > > production on it. I'd try the process again and figure out
> > > > what you did wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I hope I wrote something readable this time. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > --STeve Andre'
> > >
> > > --
> > > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> > > See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>
>
>
