From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 3 12:16:44 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DA516A4B3; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C99F44005; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:16:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h93JGgbe005629; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:16:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h93JGgth005628; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:16:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:16:41 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20031003191641.GB4934@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <3F7DAA8F.9050600@reversedhell.net> <20031003172842.GA62106@madman.celabo.org> <20031003180219.GC35274@sunbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031003180219.GC35274@sunbay.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: "can't find kernel source tree" error when building the kernel. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:16:44 -0000 On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:02:19PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > How are you building the kernel? Are you using `make buildworld' first > > and then `make buildkernel' (or `make kernel')? > > > Maybe now it will be more obvious why I thought that upgrade_checks > should always be done, for all standard src/Makefile targets. It has already been obvious why you thought upgrade_checks should always be done. The obviousness of your thoughts says nothing about the correctness or sensibility of your thoughts, though. You still fail to see that buildkernel is not always the way people build kernels and buildworld not a target that's made on a daily basis. You therefore continue to break the development environment for a significant portion of the -current developers by failing to use common sense and hanging on to obvious and obviously flawed points of view. To be less vague about this: your change to kmod.mk was not made after giving a dependent change, i.e. the fix to make(1), sufficient time to take effect by the natural course of events. Instead you made a change that takes effect immediately right after making a change that only takes effect after an install and then attribute breakages to other causes then your own actions. I consider that a severe lack of good judgement. The "Marcel approved" way of doing this would be: 1. fix make(1), 2. Wait a month (or so) or until after the next release, whichever comes first, 3. Change kmod.mk. If something else needs to be fixed that depends on changing kmod.mk so that you don't have the time to let nature do it's thing, you send a HEADS UP to tell people that they need to build and install make(1) to restore universal balance. Under no circumstances are you to break the development environment gratuitously and turn it into a political event that allows you to draw attention (obviously) to your (obvious) thoughts. END OF LINE -- Master Control, TRON -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net