Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 02:04:13 +0200 From: Michael Dexter <dexter@ambidexter.com> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Follow-up: Yet Another make release fails on ghostscript-gnu Message-ID: <a05111a06b9ee06c18901@[192.168.1.101]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greetings again, Regarding the make release mentioned earlier... After peppering my /usr/ports/distfiles/ tree with very redundant distfiles, i.e. the same files in /usr/ports and /usr/ports/ghostscript and /usr/ports/ghostscript-gnu, things finally worked. (Ending on a vn present failure but I know where to look on that one) Given the time it takes to test each and every variable, I fear I will never be confident that I have an answer, though it was very educational... Early on, I tried stepping through "make release.1" and all but this appeared to ignore the flags I sent it. All of the output was sent to the /R directory, rather than my choice of /usr/testrelease/ Can that be changed? Is there indeed a way to step-trough a release build? Having complete control over the build of my network OS is simply revolutionary... but I was hoping this revolution would not be so bloody. Conclusions: As suggested elsewhere, it would be nice to have an official source of buildable release files like the /usr/src on the CD, that would spare one the guesswork of trusting the ports "fetch" to build the build files prior to making the release. Might a pre-make script based upon the real make script perform all of the downloads and checksum verifications? This could save hours in wasted build time and guesswork, a bit like running cvsup prior to building world, knowing exactly what source will be used. I will look into this but again, my experience with make is only a few hours old. Thanks again, Michael. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a05111a06b9ee06c18901>