Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 08:59:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, scott@statsci.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Building inside of /usr/src? Message-ID: <199606281559.IAA14238@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <1570.835932445@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Jun 27, 96 08:27:25 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If you read the comments above this section of code, and have worked on > > asymetric AMD managed user home directory systems, and used pmake > > in parallel mode on these systems it would be clear as to why it if > > preferintial to use $PWD if $PWD infact resolves to the sameplace as > > getcwd(). > > But PWD can't be trusted, as we've already seen. How would you > suggest that we GUARANTEE that $PWD and getcwd() return the same > contents? > It's useless otherwise since you'll have different > invocations of the build return totally different obj directories and > the only reason this didn't become a problem before was because the > "window" for failure was narrower - you had to have a bogus $PWD at > the time you built the links rather than just at any time. At least go ask Adam de Boor about the rational for the code, after all this is ``contributed'' software, and you are making a visible functional change to it. > > > Please back out your commit... there was, and is, a good reason for doing > > what it does. The brokeness is in you new .mk stuff if any place. > > I simply don't agree. If the old make system had been a paragon of > virtue and simplicity then I'd agree that changing it was bad. > However, it wasn't and I don't think it is. > > Jordan > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606281559.IAA14238>