From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jan 11 11: 0:22 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mailhost01.reflexnet.net (mailhost01.reflexnet.net [64.6.192.82])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6855F37B401; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:00:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexcom.com ([64.6.211.149]) by mailhost01.reflexnet.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19);
	 Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:58:18 -0800
Received: (from cjc@localhost)
	by rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexcom.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) id f0BJ03O90286;
	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:00:03 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from cjc)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:00:03 -0800
From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net>
To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sysinstall.8 Breaking buildworld
Message-ID: <20010111110003.A90221@rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexco>
Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu
References: <20010110233045.D989@rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexco> <200101111729.f0BHTji13857@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <200101111729.f0BHTji13857@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>; from bmah@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 09:29:45AM -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 09:29:45AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote:

[snip]

> My personal opinion is that sysinstall.8 is a part of the base system
> and shouldn't be optional. If we take your suggestion, it means that
> installworld will sometimes install this manpage and sometimes it won't.

Bu-ut, as you point out...

> A good counter-argument is that installworld doesn't touch 
> /stand/sysinstall, and therefore shouldn't touch the manpage either.

I think getting the sysinstall binary and manpages out of sync, which
is what the current configuration promises to do, is in itself a
bug.

> Idea:  Maybe we need the release building process to do this instead?
> On all of my systems, the sysinstall binary came from a CD, and never
> got touched by any subsequent installworlds.

I had assumed that the 'release' target would do something like this
which explains why I was so puzzled by this change. I now understand
why some people wanted it.

> > Anyone have a good reason why everyone _must_ have src-release to
> > buildworld? 
> 
> I never thought of trying to do a buildworld with anything less than 
> src-all.  I guess my counter question is:  Anyone have a good reason to 
> do buildworlds *without* /usr/src/release/?

When I was CVSup'ing over a phone line to a notebook PC with a 750MB
HDD, I trimmed my supfile to only what I needed, no src-games, no
src-kerberosIV, no src-kerberos5, no src-release, etc.

But to reiterate, I think the best reason not to do this is the
potential for getting /stand/sysinstall and sysinstall(8) out of sync
on your system. That is Just Wrong. The manpage should only be
installed when /stand/sysinstall changes.

The fact that src-release is now required was just an annoyance since
I lost a build before I tracked it down. I woulda got over it. ;) I
had not even noticed the change on some builds over the weekend since
I do ususally grab src-release.
-- 
Crist J. Clark                           cjclark@alum.mit.edu


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message