Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:00:25 +1000
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        jb@cimlogic.com.au, paul@originative.co.uk
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG, dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu, imp@village.org, nrice@emu.sourcee.com
Subject:   Re: Does building current on 2.2.x still work?
Message-ID:  <199807221200.WAA17349@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Would it make sense to install the new mk files during the bootstrap
>> target. The original idea I had for the bootstrap target was to deal
>> with precisely these things, carry out steps required to bootstrap from
>> the previously released version to current.
>
>The issue here is that you can't necessarily parse the top level makefile
>without consistent .mk includes, so your bootstrap target won't be
>guaranteed of working. And a buildworld is not supposed to clobber 
>things on the host system, so you have to live with old installed .mk
>files.

Yes, installing .mk files just to bootstrap would cause much the same
problems as making the infamous `includes' target just to bootstrap.  OTOH,
src/Makefile is a simple Makefile; there is no reason it can't be written
to work with the current set of .mk files provided they are consistent.

>The answer is: don't use them. Except for parsing the top level makefile,
>the current build system doesn't use the installed .mk files. When you
>specify the -m argument on the command line, you get a consistent build.
>W^5 (Which Was What We Wanted).

Except when you specify the wrong -m arg on the command line.

Bruce

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?199807221200.WAA17349>