Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > muc.lists.netbsd.tech.install > #239

Re: Should build.sh install=/foo generate a "complete" installation?

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 07:12:39PM -0700, Chris Hanson wrote:
> Specifically, I used
> 
>     ./build/sh \
>         -m sparc64 \
>         -T /usr/tools-10/sparc64 \
>         -O /usr/obj-10/sparc64 \
>         -x -U -u \
>         ${command}
> 
> three times to build (my local branch of) netbsd-10, with ${command} producing in order:
> 
>     tools
>     kernel=GENERIC distribution
>     install=/export/NetBSD/10.1/root/ultra60

I would suggest to use "kernel=GENERIC distsets" as target (just a signle invocation, it
will do all required other steps internally) and then untar all the sets
produced in the target directory. The tar extraction has to be run as
root. And the kernel might be slightly hidden in the -O directory and
needs to be copied over. This is a bit cheaper than the official way, which
is: "release" as single target, which will create a few more files than
you need.

Martin

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de

Back to muc.lists.netbsd.tech.install | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Should build.sh install=/foo generate a "complete" installation? Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> - 2025-07-06 10:46 +0200
  Re: Should build.sh install=/foo generate a "complete" installation? Chris Hanson <cmhanson@eschatologist.net> - 2025-07-06 11:28 -0700
    Re: Should build.sh install=/foo generate a "complete" installation? Chris Hanson <cmhanson@eschatologist.net> - 2025-07-06 22:33 -0700
      Re: Should build.sh install=/foo generate a "complete" installation? Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> - 2025-07-07 10:24 +0200

csiph-web