Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:02:20 -0800 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default? (was: Re: Cross-Development with NetBSD) Message-ID: <20021121220220.GB6062@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021121143119.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <3DDD2CB8.7E080912@mindspring.com> <XFMail.20021121143119.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>: > Make release is a very poor example b/c make release goes to great > efforts to create a clean-room environment for a release. make > rerelease is quite helpful though and does do what you want to > restart a previous release. :) Also, make buildworld -DNOCLEAN > isn't too shabby, though if I could do make TARGET_ARCH=alpha > everything I would prefer that. I have long wondered why NOCLEAN isn't the default. There seem to be a few cases where it doesn't DTRT for kernel builds, but it seems a bit conservative to make incremental world builds require that an undocumented variable be defined. Any ideas? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021121220220.GB6062>