From owner-freebsd-current  Thu May  1 14:22:15 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA18105
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 14:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA18100;
          Thu, 1 May 1997 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA26111; Thu, 1 May 1997 14:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: bde@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: -current build is now broken.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 May 1997 07:06:14 +1000."
             <199705012106.HAA25766@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 14:22:23 -0700
Message-ID: <26101.862521743@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> No, it's the responsibility of release/Makefile to be almost independent
> of the host.  Just use -m like I said to get *.mk from the src tree

Technically, yes.  In reality, no.  If you're keen to change that
reality then go for it with my full blessings.  Otherwise, it's simply
pointless to target a _potential_ scenario rather than the one we have
right now and people will still get nasty-grams from me if they break
my release builds with some change.  Pureness of heart and a strong
ideology are all well and good, but the current constraints are still
valid and there's no excuse for not operating within the parameters
established by the build/release system we have.  If a release worked
"yesterday" and breaks today then the blame does not fall on the
system itself, it falls on whomever broke it between yesterday and
today. :-)

					Jordan