From owner-freebsd-current Wed Feb 22 17:39:12 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id RAA13890 for current-outgoing; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:39:12 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA13883 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:39:05 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id SAA16814; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:42:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:42:26 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199502230142.SAA16814@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp "Re: TRUE and FALSE" (Feb 22, 4:27pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: TRUE and FALSE Cc: current@freefall.cdrom.com Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > The fundamental problem is that the source-tree should be self-contained. > > > > > > Just think about the benefit of a "make world" which will not hose your > > > c-compiler if the c-compiler source is sick... > > > > And just where am I going to install the new tools? This assumes that I > > have room for 2 completely independant 'systems' on the same box. This > > is very rarely the case for most folks. And for those that do have the > > room for both, an chroot tree works *almost* as good as doesn't cause a > > lot of un-ncessary headache for the common case. > > Nate, a chroot tree has exactly the same size as one made using proper > application of the $DESTDIR. Thinks about it... Read what I wrote. I *know* that, but all of a sudden we've made the release only target the default. That implies that everyone should have 2 trees on their machines. How else would a 'normal' user not hose himself if his compiler is sick? Nate