Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:42:26 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> Cc: current@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: TRUE and FALSE Message-ID: <199502230142.SAA16814@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> "Re: TRUE and FALSE" (Feb 22, 4:27pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199502230142.SAA16814>