From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 30 19:27:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA8F16A4CE; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:27:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dexter.zoopee.org (zoopee.org [192.117.108.58]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C62643D55; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:27:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from alsbergt@zoopee.org) Received: from alsbergt by dexter.zoopee.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1C1roI-0007bs-S8; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:27:22 +0300 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:27:22 +0300 From: Tom Alsberg To: Brooks Davis Message-ID: <20040830192722.GA29212@zoopee.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Alsberg , Brooks Davis , Geert Hendrickx , simon@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Hackers List References: <20040810223606.GA75648@lori.mine.nu> <20040811124714.GA51160@eddie.nitro.dk> <20040814080337.GA17811@lori.mine.nu> <20040815165330.GA4726@odin.ac.hmc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040815165330.GA4726@odin.ac.hmc.edu> X-Face: "5"j@Y1Peoz1; ftTv>\|['ox-csmV+:_RDNdi/2lSe2x?0:HVAeVW~ajwQ7RfDlcb^18eJ; t,O,s5-aNdU/DJ2E8h1s,..4}N9$27u`pWmH|; s!zlqqVwr9R^_ji=1\3}Z6gQBYyQ]{gd5-V8s^fYf{$V2*_&S>eA|SH@Y\hOVUjd[5eah{EO@gCr.ydSpJHJIU[QsH~bC?$C@O:SzF=CaUxp80-iknM(]q(W cc: FreeBSD Hackers List cc: simon@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make "quickworld"? (like in DragonFly) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Tom Alsberg List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:27:32 -0000 On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 09:53:30AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 10:03:37AM +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote: > > Does adding "NOCLEAN=true" to /etc/make.conf have the same effect? Just my two cents: > Yes, but it's likely to attract flames because NOCLEAN does fail. If > you forget it's in your make.conf there's a good chance you could report > a bug that isn't a bug a waste a bunch of developer time. In that case, there is a bug though - namely, a bug in the Makefile. Although this has happened to me in the past, it shouldn't happen in normal circumstances. The idea of Makefiles, when writing them correctly, is that only what's affected by a change -- but everything affected by it -- will be rebuilt in case of a change. So there's no good reason for a make to fail unless something very odd happened (with the timestamps, etc.) or something like this happens, it means some dependency is missing, or some script external to the Makefile did something wrong. > -- Brooks Cheers, -- Tom -- Tom Alsberg - certified insane, complete illiterate. Homepage: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~alsbergt/ * An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.