Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:16:56 -0600 (CST) From: faulkner@mpd.tandem.com (Boyd Faulkner) To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes) Cc: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, bde@zeta.org.au, me@tartufo.pcs.dec.com, nate@trout.sri.mt.net, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Make World Times and a question about shared libs / make all Message-ID: <9503232016.AA25329@olympus> In-Reply-To: <199503231719.JAA01094@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Mar 23, 95 09:19:03 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > > > > Would people think it gross if /usr/include was nothing but > > > > a directory tree full of symbolic links into /usr/src (or > > > > where ever you did the ``make INCLUDE_TYPES=symlink includes'' from). > > > > > > No, that would actually be more (he ducks) ORTHOGONAL! :-) > > > > > > Seriously. Then you at least have a tree of links or a tree of copies > > > but never a mix (you may recall me raving on this particular topic > > > awhile back) and it's at least a whole lot easier to _understand_. > > > > > > Yes! Please! > > > > > > Jordan > > > > > > > How would that work for folks who don't want to keep an entire source tree > > available? I have the room, myself, but lots of friends running FreeBSD > > are doing it in 200-300 meg partitions. Would this hurt them? > > Folks without the entire source tree on line should probably not be > attempting to run ``make includes''. It would fail now if any of > the directories need by this are missing. [I am working on > the later for the SHARED=copies case]. > > If they want to run with limit src tree they well need to be careful > about CLOBBER and /usr/include. With the new .mk and Makefile mods > in place the correct command for a partial src tree would become: > cd /usr/src; > make INCLUDE_TYPES=copies includes > > Note that INCLUDE_TYPES is my new name for ``SHARED'', since this is > become overloaded. The default INCLUDE_TYPES will be copies, so > in the above command you could leave this out. > > My new includes: target is a lot smarter than the current one, it > uses a list of places to cd into and run ``make install_includes''. > For each directory in this list we first check to see if that > place exists in the src tree, if it does not a little skip message > is printed and things continue on there way. I could add some > better error checking for the CLOBBER case and make this an error > condition instead of just a warning. > > Right now I use a compatibility hack in the .mk files that calls > beforeinstall: for install_includes: so that I don't have to > modify a pile of Makefiles at this time. > > If 2.1 is pushed out past the end of April I should have time to > finish this work off and intergrate a massive .mk overhall, if > not it can wait for 2.2. > I think it would be a fine option but a poor default. There are those of us who have backed up our system source to play with other sources. Also, unlikely as this is, a compile could break while running sup. For those who have multiple users, coordination could be a problem. I would be happier if the include file installed only if it changed. Then when my sources get torqued, I have the real thing. I don't always make it through a sup and then where am I. Oh, and what about version upgrades! And it has snowed in Texas! I mean the central part!.... Sorry :-) Boyd -- _______________________________________________________________________ Boyd Faulkner faulkner@isd.tandem.com _______________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9503232016.AA25329>