From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Apr  5 13:25:35 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA28100
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 13:25:35 -0700
Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA28088
          for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 13:25:23 -0700
Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id OAA12023; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:23:42 -0600
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:23:42 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199504052023.OAA12023@trout.sri.MT.net>
In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
       "Re: NOTICE: If you care, speak now!" (Apr  6,  6:12am)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, terry@cs.weber.edu
Subject: New install flags ( was Re: NOTICE: If you care, speak now!)
Cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> > 3) This is no more of a change than the changes to "install" that are being
> >> > so widely advocated.
> >>
> >> Huh?  The install change affects *one* utility, but the changes you are
> >> advocating effect the entire build process, and from the sounds of it
> >> every Makefile.  And, as a rebuttal, even though the install changes are
> >> to one tool, because of the significance of the tool those changes might
> >> not make it into the release.
> 
> >Oh, ho, he's got you, Nate!  That one utility is used to install all the
> >binaries on the system.  8-).
> 
> The new flags would have no effect if they weren't used.  It's very easy
> to support the new flags without affecting the current build process if
> you don't want to:

This assumes that the new install utility has no more bugs than the
current version. :-)

> + change `install'
> + fix some system makefiles that suffer from bitrot: bsd.doc.mk,
>   bsd.info.mk and bsd.man.mk are missing support for ${INSTALLFLAGS}.
> 
> Users who wish to use the new flags can type
> 
> 	make INSTALLFLAGS='-newflag1 =newflag2 ...'
> 
> If most developers like this then we can change the makefiles to always
> use the new flags (headers and libararies should be installed without
> changing the target timestamp if possible).

My thoughts exactly.  We could incrementaly add them to the tree as we see
fit, and after enough testing is done.

It wouldn't affect the current process one bit *unless* it was decided
by the release engineer to be a worthwhile addition.


Nate