Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 9:32:26 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: phk@ref.tfs.com, current@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: TRUE and FALSE Message-ID: <9502231632.AA03022@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199502230023.RAA16248@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Feb 22, 95 05:23:23 pm
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. This is the reason I agreed with Garrett. It has to be possible, as an option, to build into the current installation. It doesn't mean that I think it should be the default. Ideally in this case, you would build-behind, deleting objects after install so at most the extra storage you'd need if you built from a CDROM would be the directory and object and binaries for a single system component. This is not to say that this won't be too much storage in some cases for some people, but then they don't get to rebuild. We can't make disk space out of air. Well I can, but I have a patent pending so it's all very hush-hush. 8-) 8-). The biggest messes would be the kernel and some of the GNU utilities that had large numbers of objects. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502231632.AA03022>