Install DragonFlyBSD on 32 MB RAM
saw at online.de
Sat Apr 7 04:23:23 PDT 2012
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:39:54 +0200, <v_2e at ukr.net> wrote:
>> Really - if you're making a custom kernel config and are changing
>> options without checking what they do in the source tree - expect
>> things to fail both in the build and while running, and expect to
>> get your hands dirty - which means reading the source and finding
>> out what the options do to the code.
> I managed to build my custom kernel by adding the string
> to the file '/etc/make.conf'.
The warning you got pointed to a real issue. It's just that no one had
tested USERCONFIG without VISUAL_USERCONFIG. I have fixed it in master
> It built fine after that and now my system works with this kernel, but
> I am still not sure whether such trick is acceptable or not. Could
> somebody please shortly explain me the reasons for which warnings are
> treated as errors by default and give some advice on whether I should
> stick to such mode or not necessarily?
It is to catch regressions and things that need fixing. If buildkernel
fails on a warning-turned-error after changing the config it is worth
reporting in all cases.
Another different thing is changing GCC's flags (like, using -O2 instead
of -O). This often introduces new warnings which we haven't cleaned our
source for (and also don't always want to). This is where you are on your
own and (like Chris said) have to expect breakage from -Werror (which can
be worked around with NO_WERROR).
More information about the Users