Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:30:02 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU Cc: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, tlambert2@mindspring.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, ru@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default? Message-ID: <20021121.163002.08630706.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20021121220220.GB6062@HAL9000.homeunix.com> References: <3DDD2CB8.7E080912@mindspring.com> <XFMail.20021121143119.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20021121220220.GB6062@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20021121220220.GB6062@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
: Thus spake John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>:
: > Make release is a very poor example b/c make release goes to great
: > efforts to create a clean-room environment for a release. make
: > rerelease is quite helpful though and does do what you want to
: > restart a previous release. :) Also, make buildworld -DNOCLEAN
: > isn't too shabby, though if I could do make TARGET_ARCH=alpha
: > everything I would prefer that.
:
: 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?
Because the number of times that NOCLEAN screws you is high enough
that we don't want to hear the noise from novice users....
Warner
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?20021121.163002.08630706.imp>