Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:12:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, nate@sri.MT.net Subject: Re: Building inside of /usr/src? Message-ID: <199606260212.UAA01934@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <15626.835754599@time.cdrom.com> References: <199606252254.QAA00779@rocky.mt.sri.com> <15626.835754599@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > You're removed some *useful* functionality from the obj system that both > > Bruce and I both pointed out, and your arguements haven't even begun to > > address the *real* issue. Instead, you've hid behind the smoke-screen > > of 'this is how it was *supposed* to work'. I disagree. The folks at > > Well, hang on now. Just because I don't agree with you or Bruce > doesn't mean I'm hiding behind any smoke screens - I still have yet to > hear a *substantive* argument as to WHY the old behavior should be > preserved. Because it's useful *and* used. Just because *you* don't use it doesn't mean not's useful. The current behavior is non-intuitive at best, and confusing at worst. > What I get instead is "well, if you really *wanted* to stand on your > head and wiggle your left foot while whistling ``I can't get no > satisfaction'' then you wouldn't be able to now and this is bad." This is *exactly* the point I'm making. You trivialize anyone who *uses* the current behavior and claim that it's never used and/or stupid. I call that a smoke screen. > Sorry, I just don't see it as at all useful, with or without > asterisks, and to be honest I'm feeling a little annoyed that neither > of you lifted a finger to address the problems with the old system but > have no compunctions about tying me up in exchange after exchange > concerning the new one. Tell me *what* was broken about the old way that required the fix you did other than you couldn't take a system and do a make world on it? Pre-create the obj directories and have at it. That's one of the *requirements* of the old system. > I suffered all manner of problems with the > old system, complained about it bitterly for *years* and I never heard > a single squeak from anyone about how they'd undertake to fix it. But the things you complain about weren't related to your fixes on the obj directory. You complain and moan about the whole pmake paradigm and it not being standard, so why even work with it at all. You haven't addressed *any* of the problems with the obj directory except for the need for symlinks in the source directory, which were < 1% of your complaints. > Fine, I figure nobody gives a god-damn and take it upon myself to fix > it and now suddenly everyone's crawling out of the woodwork with their > favorite wacky disaster scenarios.. :-( Because what you 'fixed' wasn't broken. And, what you complained about still isn't fixed (the requirement of dealing with obj/no-obj dirs, having to Bmake tools, and the paradigm of where the install stuff occurs). Most of your complaints have little to do with pmake and instead are related to having a (necessarily) complicated build system. > If someone can convince me that I've broken something *without* using > obviously contrived examples (of which we could spin thousands and be > locked in discussion until the sun goes dark) then I'm more than > amenable to making further changes. I've given you 4-5 examples I use on a regular basis, but since they aren't relevant to you then they aren't relevant. Bruce has given you easily reproducable examples yet you ignore them as well. You haven't shown any inkling to listen, so what does it matter? They will be blown off as 'standing on your head sucking milk through your nose, so it's irrelevant' anyway. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606260212.UAA01934>