Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:56:43 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: better way to build libraries.. Message-ID: <20061001215643.GZ80527@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20061001.140824.-1264104565.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20060928231816.GI80527@funkthat.com> <20061001.140824.-1264104565.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote this message on Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 14:08 -0600:
> In message: <20060928231816.GI80527@funkthat.com>
> John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> writes:
> : Comments? Improvements?
>
> Generally, libraries are considered to be a critical part of the
> system. They often have many different interdependencies. This is
> why we have buildworld: to account for them. If you make the patches
> that you describe, then you break the upgrade path for people with
> older systems.
I don't see how adding the ability to do stand alone builds breaks
others ability to upgrade their systems through normal means (i.e.
buildworld)...
> You don't need to do a complete buildworld either to get new
> libraries. However, teasing out the parts that you do and don't need
Yes you do, if you don't want to break your existing install by doing
a make includes....
> can be a chore. Maybe we should enhance the build system to be able
> to say 'rebuild just the libraries w/o rebuilding the toolchain'.
IMO, even building just the libraries is a bit much...
I would like to integrate this into bsd.lib.mk so that if you use
bsd.lib.mk you automaticly get what my patch proposes, but my make-fu
is weak... I will admit this will be a bit redundant for buildworld,
but it could be easily turned off in that case...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061001215643.GZ80527>