Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:48:01 -0800 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default? (was: Re: Cross-Development with NetBSD) Message-ID: <20021121224800.GD6062@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20021121223608.GA20967@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <3DDD2CB8.7E080912@mindspring.com> <XFMail.20021121143119.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20021121220220.GB6062@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20021121223608.GA20967@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>: > > I have long wondered why NOCLEAN isn't the default. There seem to > > be a few cases where it doesn't DTRT for kernel builds, but it > > seems a bit conservative to make incremental world builds require > > that an undocumented variable be defined. Any ideas? > > It often causes problems during upgrades (but is usually fine when > just rebuilding a non-updated tree) Sounds reasonable. Maybe it should be documented in build(7), though. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021121224800.GD6062>