* Document the LOCAL_SCRIPT option.
* Document the NOPORTREADMES option.
* Be more specific in a comment.
* Be more specific about the ftp.1 and cdrom.1 targets.
* Clarify the usage of the CVSROOT variable.
* Clarify the usage of the NODOC variable.
Suggested by: matusita
about the TARGET_ARCH variable. (1)
Add information about the DESTDIR variable.
Add more examples for cross-building.
(1) Submitted by: ru
MFC after: 3 days
* Remove trailing whitespace at EOL.
* Various grammar cleanups.
* Note that MAKE_ISOS is disabled by default.
* Use more descriptive mdoc markup.
* Use proper references for the online FDP documents.
Submitted by: dd
Specifically, this documents the available targets and relevant
environment variables for "make release". LOCAL_PATCHES,
RELEASEDISTFILES, RELEASENOUPDATE, etc.. are covered.
A future commit should add more information about drivers.conf,
boot_crunch.conf, and other less well-known aspects of the release
build.
Reviewed and history section added by: phk
o Combine ufs.7 and ffs.7 into a single ffs.7 man page.
o Remove all references to `ufs' as a file system.
o Proper (lack of) capitalization for `ffs'.
Obtained from: TrustedBSD Project
Sposnored by: DARPA, NAI Labs
language about softupdates to reference this fact, as well as slightly
moderate the "recommend Softupdates for use on all filesystems" to
"most filesystems" so as to be consistent with what sysinstall selects.
for consistency with the rest of the document. Since we've already
described the properties of loader tunables elsewhere, remove the
duplicate description of it being a boot-time property.
MFC after: 3 days
16384/2048.
Following recent discussions on the -arch mailing list, involving dillon
and mckusick, this change parallels the one made over a decade ago when
the default was bumped up from 4096/512.
This should provide significant performance improvements for most
folks, less significant performance losses for a few folks and
wasted space lost to large fragments for many folks.
For discussion, please see the following thread in the -arch archive:
Subject: Using a larger block size on large filesystems
The discussion ceases to be relevant when the issue of partitioning
schemes is raised.
