From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 23 09:45:52 1994 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id JAA18920 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Dec 1994 09:45:52 -0800 Received: from grunt.grondar.za (grunt.grondar.za [196.7.18.129]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA18899 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 1994 17:45:29 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grunt.grondar.za (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA15897; Fri, 23 Dec 1994 19:44:43 +0200 Message-Id: <199412231744.TAA15897@grunt.grondar.za> X-Authentication-Warning: grunt.grondar.za: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: hackers@freebsd.org, current@frreebsd.org Subject: How much of a schlepp... Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 19:44:42 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk ... or bummer would it be to have sup "its very small" included in the bindist; _then_ supping could be a part of the 'make' structure? ie cd /usr/src/bin;make sup;make clean;make.... If there are objections to putting _sup_ in by itself (I suspect there may be), what about just putting some sup targets into the makefiles? having an all-or-bust sup system is starting to make less sense at the end of a slow wire. I am not referring to the one currently in /usr/src/Makefile, but rather farming the individual lines in the supfile out to their respective directories. How does it sound? M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200