Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:11:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu, dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Yet Another bug in src/Makefile Message-ID: <199709242211.PAA17346@usr03.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199709240934.CAA10986@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from "Satoshi Asami" at Sep 24, 97 02:34:08 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * I sure as hell do not want to rebuild "more", or even do a make install > * in /usr/src/include. I want to buildd the *absolute* minimum for the > * delta I am playing with -- and not *one file* more or less than that. > > I suggest you go read the new src/Makefile. Nothing is built by > installing stuff in /usr/src/include anymore. I should probably clarify: I want to rebuild things which depend on the headers which were touchesd in the source tree, not the headers that were touched by the install. Short of checking the headers out from the source tree to the installed location, the dates are munged. > There is no target to do exactly what you want, but it is very easy to > add a target that will build any subset you want and put it in a > separate subdirectory tree as this is essentially what's done in the > first few steps of "buildworld". This is close, but not quite. I'm most interested in /usr/include/sys and similar header changes, obviously. The current build stuff is not quite there without a duplication of certain parts of the source tree. Ideally, I'd be able to run a tail-chasing build, where after I build something, install it, and recover the space needed to build it; further, I would only do this for things which were impacted by changes I found interesting -- for me, the kernel. Having a copy of the proposed post-install include directory doesn't really cut it. > That's what DESTDIR is for. The framework was already mostly there, > we only needed to fix some little stuff other than the big patch to > src/Makefile. Well, I think the problem is probably the assumption that the system component include directories are the same as the non-system component (ports, user programs) include directories. Machine is one big problem that I don't see being fixed by anything short of an architecturally specific symbolic link (so one can be i386, another can be ppc6xx, another alpha, and so on) witout it needing to be varient. Anything less, and I must either conduct builds sequentially instead of concurrently, or allocate more disk space than I want to the task. 8-(. Don't feel bad; USL is all buggered up in this department, too; so is Sun and just about everyone else. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709242211.PAA17346>