Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:24:23 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "make modules" kicks the first module directory twice Message-ID: <20001113152423.B39667@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200011131923.MAA33880@harmony.village.org>; from imp@village.org on Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:23:08PM -0700 References: <20001113095555.A38404@dragon.nuxi.com> <20001113145812F.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <HLEDJBJKDDPDJBMGCLPPKEFGCIAA.otterr@telocity.com> <3A085F93.BC245A53@cup.hp.com> <20001113145812F.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <200011130658.eAD6wdG38522@billy-club.village.org> <20001113095555.A38404@dragon.nuxi.com> <200011131923.MAA33880@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:23:08PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> : > I think that make has no business doing an implicit make obj for the
> : > all target.
> : Someone has to run `make obj' for the modules tree. How are you doing it
> : locally?
>
> Right now we do it twice. Once in make dpeend and again in make
> all. My patch removes it from make all.
..snip..
> I'm not sure what you're criteria for a robust world is here. If the
> directory doesn't exist, it will warn the user.
It doesn't warn the user, it errors out (possibly a suttle distinction
I'm making). Also in the past a `make depend' for the kernel was not
required. Just highly suggested. Are we really prepared to make it a
requirement now?
To tell the truth, IMHO the modules should just build in the current
directory (and thus could share some .o's with the kernel build).
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001113152423.B39667>