Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 03:25:22 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-etc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/mtree BSD.include.dist Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970605032016.3370B-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> In-Reply-To: <199706042319.QAA01463@vader.cs.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * What bad happen in keeping the same scheme for release and for source > * distribution and avoid such special cases? > > So are you suggesting that we make users install the source > distribution just because they want to compile something? Or are you > saying we do it the other way, having them always as directories? No, I suggest to install only needed /sys part, i.e. *.h files from it, and keep symlinks as in source case. Current variant will cause /usr/include and /sys files mismatch if somebody extract kernel sources over release. > I think you got this backwards. ;) If you extract a source > distribution, it will all go under /usr/src. The /usr/include/* will > stay as directories. It is just the case I fear: if you change something in kernel include file (i.e. FD_SETSIZE), you need not forget to copy it to /usr/include too or mismatch happens. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970605032016.3370B-100000>