Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 09:29:21 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shouldn't 'make includes' install stand.h? Message-ID: <199810041629.JAA05200@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 04 Oct 1998 09:56:25 -0000." <19981004095625.A879@scsn.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> While trying to build the new boot loader, it kept failing because > stand.h was not found. To make a long story short, I had previously > done a 'make -DCLOBBER includes' in the (apparently mistaken) belief > that this was the canonically-accepted way of making sure that I had > a clean, up-to-date, and _complete_ set of includes in /usr/include. > It appears that /usr/include/stand.h only gets installed when > libstand is installed. > > Shouldn't a 'make -DCLOBBER includes' result in a _complete_ set > of includes? Are there other includes than stand.h that don't > get installed by 'make includes'? No. "Make includes" installs random header files. libstand.h is installed at the same time libstand is; if you install just the former, you're going to die in the link phase when you can't find the latter. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com 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?199810041629.JAA05200>