Re: building modules by build.sh (Re: exec: /sbin/init: error 8)

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

Quentin Garnier wrote:

> I definitely agree with Andrew that there is no need to overthink the
> name of the set.  While "modules.tgz" might not reflect the exact
> reality, it is well know what it is about, and I don't think there'd be
> any confusion about it.

Well, it would be really painful to change the set name
(too many files to be fixed, including sysinst per ports),
so I'd like to confirm there is no strong objection :-)

Current other sets (base, comp, text...) are somewhat meaningful
even for users who don't know NetBSD internals (though some of
them are not so clear), so I wonder if the kernel module set should
have the similar naming scheme.

> My idea about build.sh vs. modules was:
> 
>  - provide a modules.tgz set
>  - have a build.sh target to build and install modules (I don't think
>    there is much gain splitting it in two targets)

Yes, current "build.sh install=/dir" uses src/distrib/sets/Makefile
via "installworld" target in src/Makefile, so probably we have to
prepare the similar rule with the new module set file.

>  - add an option to build.sh's sets and install targets to only install
>    the sets listed, so  you'd use e.g. ./build.sh -s modules install=/.

How about "build.sh install_module=/dir" as darcy@ suggest
on current-users?

---
Izumi Tsutsui