Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:10:22 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Makoto Matsushita <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, ru@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src Makefile Makefile.inc1 src/etc Makefile src/ Message-ID: <XFMail.20020426231022.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20020427111804X.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27-Apr-2002 Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > Correct typo.. > > matusita> Does this mean "make release" procedure can't use any tools that > "make release.X (where X = 1..9)" > > *** > > I don't argue anything about this; I want to make it clear the effects > of removing the second "make installworld." No, instead, it needs to use cross-tools or build-tools or some such. If release uses more things than are available then we may need to have a release-tools concept. Either that or maybe we should actually still build a full world in the chroot, then for cross builds build another world, but this time a cross-built one. This would probably result in fewer diffs. The distribute stuff already uses what is in /usr/obj, so it would just simply involve adding an extra buildworld after the world. I would actually prefer that as it still preserves the "clean room" atmosphere that a release is supposed to have. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020426231022.jhb>