Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:06:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk (Paul Richards) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Hackers), FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD current users) Subject: Re: Somebody explain this to me again.. :-) Message-ID: <199606051106.NAA08433@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <199605301434.PAA01311@cadair.elsevier.co.uk> from "Paul Richards" at May 30, 96 03:34:23 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Richards writes:
>
> In reply to Bruce Evans who said
>>
>> >Why does the ``libraries'' target in /usr/src/Makefile cleans
>> >automatically? Sure, you can set NOCLEANDIR but then that turns off
>>
>> The libraries might be different if the compiler has changed. The
>> compiler might change because it's not in lib-tools.
>>
>
> I think perhaps the make world methodology is now largely redundant. In
> the early days we were so busy fixing bugs in the build
> tools/libraries/headers that we needed something like this but I'm not
> sure that's the case now.
I heartily agree! I've been rebuilding -stable since Monday, and
every time I run into a minor problem, I have to start again from
scratch.
> I think a make bootstrap would be more convenient these days where specific
> cases for this particular release can be put thus avoiding a lot of
> rebuilding that's basically unecessary.
Yes, this seems the way to go.
> When was the last time we changed the compiler, or libm or most of the
> other stuff, doesn't make sense to include it all in the multiple
> build stages.
If the compiler's the reason for rebuilding, why not make the
libraries dependent on it? It seems that a lot of the 'rm -rf's in
the Makefiles are the result of inadequate dependencies. I would
suggest that we make the standard build ('make everything'?) without
any 'rm -rf', and gradually work on getting the dependencies correct.
Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606051106.NAA08433>