Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 19:19:43 +0000 From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shouldn't 'make includes' install stand.h? Message-ID: <19981004191943.A422@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <199810042108.OAA06658@dingo.cdrom.com>; from Mike Smith on Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 02:08:42PM -0700 References: <19981004133239.A309@scsn.net> <199810042108.OAA06658@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 02:08:42PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > Shouldn't a 'make -DCLOBBER includes' result in a _complete_ set > > > > of includes? Are there other includes than stand.h that don't > > > > get installed by 'make includes'? > > > > > > No. "Make includes" installs random header files. libstand.h is > > > installed at the same time libstand is; if you install just the former, > > > you're going to die in the link phase when you can't find the latter. > > > > 'Random header files'? Ok, if you say so, but so far, the only "standard" > > component of /usr/include I've managed to identify as _not_ installed by > > 'make includes' is stand.h. This seems counterintuitive to me... > > libstand.h is not a "standard" component of /usr/include, any more than > eg. zlib.h. > > > Your point about installing the header without the lib is valid, but it > > seems to me that this is applicable to just about all of the includes, in one > > way or another. Maybe there shouldn't be a 'make includes' target at all? > > 'make includes' theoretically exists as a catchall to install headers > not associated with any particular item. It's commonly abused to avoid > the chicken-and-egg problem that occurs when you try to build a tool > that consumes an interface to something else that hasn't been built yet. > > > I'm not trying to be combative here; this is not a religious issue to > > me... The current behavior just seems to me to violate POLA. > > Only if you have misapprehensions about what 'make includes' does. It > seems mostly to trip up people with such misapprehensions. Well, I can only plead guilty as charged. If I want to rebuild everything in /usr/bin, I can cd to /usr/src/bin, type 'make all install', and watch everything in /usr/bin be rebuilt. The same applies to /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /usr/share, etc., etc., etc. I thought the 'make includes' target was intended to rebuild /usr/include in the same way; it appears, however, that the only way to repopulate the /usr/include dir _completely_ is 'make world'. Oh well... 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?19981004191943.A422>