Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 00:57:14 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strange entries in /usr/src/Makefile Message-ID: <199507240757.AAA20449@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199507210223.TAA10403@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> (rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rod, it doesn't seem like we are going to reach any sort of agreement, but here it goes another one.... * If you think /usr/src/Makefile is complicated, go read release/Makefile * for some enjoyment... The release tree is not for general consumption. ;) * Or how about this for a comparitive, the length of bsd.port.mk is * almost as long as the sum of all the other .mk files combined :-) I know, and believe me, I'm going to clean this thing up. It's long because there is lots of code duplication, because I didn't know how to use macros. :p * Yes, it did, here is some of the rcs log that effected the change: Thanks. Is there somewhere I can check the old commit logs? * No, that is not ``an argument for the sake of an argument''. It is * a statement of reality. Your point that it is in /usr/share means that * the ports mechanism has contaiminted a standard part of the system, * only makeing the case stronger that the ideal can not be achived. But that doesn't mean we should try to keep them separated as much as possible. * Because ``make world'' is shorter, and the actual sequence of events * will be slightly different for you 2 sets of commands. If you really * want to know, go dig it out of the mail archive. Ports is a subsidiary Where can I find the old mail archives? * > Well, the stuff about the obj links and stuff are useless. We don't * > have them in the ports tree (and I don't think we ever had). * * Then again, this is ports changing without propery keeping src in sync * with the changes in the paradigm. This only proves my point, nobody in the ports group didn't even think about /usr/src/Makefile (I didn't even know ports is mentioned here!) when this change occurred. I'm just trying to keep the inter-depencies of the two trees to a minimum. * Because this point was argued 2 years ago, and you seem to be the * only one mounting a case to change it (and I the only one in it's * defense because I was there when it was done and know it took a lot * of convincing to get it added, but it was a _group_ decission to * do it.) Your just too late!!! Well, we got replies from two others, Jordan's "I prefer it nuked" and Julian's "nuke it if you want". And we can still delete it with a group decision. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507240757.AAA20449>