From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Apr 21 18:55:58 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA29840
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA29833
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA06804; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: What do folks think of the following patch? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 Apr 1996 19:02:03 MDT."
             <199604220102.TAA07674@rocky.sri.MT.net> 
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:55:37 -0700
Message-ID: <6802.830138137@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

/etc is not updated across upgrades, nor is it vulnerable to src
smashing.

					Jordan


> > It seems like world, update, all and install should be targets which
> > include an optional sub-make in /etc/Makefile for the corresponding
> > target (only the diff to world: is shown here).  This would give us
> > a nice way of doing site-specific stuff which is preserved across changes
> > to /usr/src/Makefile.
> 
> Since both /etc/make.conf and /usr/src/Makefile are generated by us,
> what does adding it in the tree vs. having them add buy us?
> 
> In either case, the end-user has to edit the files.
> 
> (I'm not against the idea, but I don't see any purpose for it.)
> 
> 
> 
> nate