Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 21:29:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@freebsd.org> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, committers@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/make.conf abuse Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910082125560.312-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <19991008192943.S71340@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Eivind Eklund wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 11:08:34PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > Bruce Evans wrote: > > > Right. /etc/make.conf is for configuring make(1), not for configuring > > > /usr/src. It is already abused too much for the latter. > > > > Can we consider stopping this abuse? It doesn't look like rocket > > science to read another file for the specific purpose of configuring > > /usr/src, by inserting include lines in the appropriate files at > > /usr/share/mk. Perhaps I'm missing something? > > > > And, assuming wide opposition does not arise (though this DOES look > > like a bike shed), would such a file be better located at /usr/src > > or /etc? > > IMO: Neither. It should be located in src, whereever you check that > out, so you can do several different builds with different > configurations. It would be nice if it was possible to specify the > name of the file on the build command line, so you could do several > differently configured builds from the same source tree. I don't > think this would be too difficult. I agree with Eivind; seeing as our make has a nice way to include files (such as a /usr/src/make.local) only if they exist, allowing an automatic place for users to do whatever they wish, with no interference from cvs, why don't we just have a little include in /usr/src/Makefile, with the proviso that anyone who makes any build complaint had better darn well be able to say they did their test build with an empty make.local, or be willing to have everyone inspect (and laugh at) the silly thing. Make.conf should not have extra pollution, it's polluted enough as it is, and this change at least seems to be pretty innocent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics, 213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing. Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic.mat.net: FreeBSD-current(i386) and (301) 220-2114 | jaunt.mat.net : FreeBSD-current(Alpha) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9910082125560.312-100000>