Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:05:50 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@mikom.csir.co.za> To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: another syscons update Message-ID: <199901201905.VAA04468@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <199901201629.AAA20789@spinner.netplex.com.au> from Peter Wemm at "Jan 21, 99 00:29:54 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > Is "make clean" really necessary? A "make depend" ought to be > > > sufficient, I would think. > > > > I think that's an attempt to protect people who've upgraded from STABLE > > and haven't gotten used to ``config -r''? > > config -r? I'd be highly suprised if this was needed at all for 99% of the > time. The only time that I've been aware of it being needed was quite some > time ago when there was an option that got removed - if people were using > it, that option wouldn't get cleaned out from the .h files, and it caused > a problem somewhere. I don't remember the specifics, it was a long time > ago. The only other time I can think of where this might be needed is > when the system clock gets screwed and the *.h files get future dates on > them. In just about all other cases, a 'make clean' is sufficient to > start the tree from scratch if there are any suspicions about old files. The place where it really bytes is when options move from one *.h to another. Especially if you then change it. :-) I wish config would remove old options out of *.h files. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@mikom.csir.co.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901201905.VAA04468>