Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:53:08 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Am I wrong or is this just stupid?r Message-ID: <321DFE14.6F5992E1@whistle.com> References: <v02140b01ae43419986b9@[199.183.109.242]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> >> Looking more at our make world methodology, I'm wondering at
> >> stuff like this:
> >>
> >> # lib-tools - build tools to compile and install the libraries.
> >> #
> >> lib-tools:
> >> cd ${.CURDIR}/usr.bin/tsort && \
> >> ${MAKE} ${MK_FLAGS} all install ${CLEANDIR} ${OBJDIR}
> >> ... ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> I know that one can turn this off by whacking CLEANDIR, but why even
> >> do this at all for the intermediate build targets? We build the
> >> miscellaneous build tools, the compiler tools and all the core
> >> libraries only to throw away the results of all that work so that we
> >> can come around and do it all over again when it comes time to make it
> >> all from the top. I've looked at all the ordering issues with this
> >> and I still can't see the logic of it. Anyone in opposition to simply
> >>
> >> Jordan
> >
> I agree that this was the logic behind the process. However, how often do
> we really upgrade gcc, etc. ?
>
> IMHO, the problem occurs because of the "build in place" mentality as
> opposed to the idea of "moving down the block". If we would adopt the idea
> that everything is made in a context which, in general, is NOT that of the
> running system, we can get a number of benefits.
>
maybe we should have a way of markig when the tools have changed,
in which case an extra pass of Make bootstrap or similar
could fix it..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?321DFE14.6F5992E1>