Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:28:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, paul@originative.co.uk, 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: <199807230428.VAA15996@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199807221200.WAA17349@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Jul 22, 98 10:00:25 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. I think it should just use the right ones. If necessary, it should build the new make to get the -m option for the reinvocation of make. A "worse than 'includes'" problem is DESTDIR. It means that you can't keep a buildable system while attempting to resolve the gcc 2.8.x world-buildability issues that prevent FreeBSD from switching to 2.8.x. DESTDIR overrides the gcc 2.8.x and g++ 2.8.x default include paths, putting the paths of the previous versions of the compiler ahead of the new versions. It does this because there is no seperation of "build environment" from "build target". This is particularly annoying to people who use C++, the STL, pthreads, C++ exceptions, and a number of other issues. It means that a lot of new code won't work. 8-(. For the same reasons, it's also hard to deal with the TenDRA compiler issues that FreeBSD has. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199807230428.VAA15996>