Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:42:03 -0500
From:      Jason Dusek <jason-dusek@uiowa.edu>
To:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: CVSUP and 5.2.1 RELEASE
Message-ID:  <40F48F6B.5070201@uiowa.edu>
In-Reply-To: <40F45DAC.5070800@linuxpowered.com>
References:  <26481.1089755361@critter.freebsd.dk> <p06002065bd1a0a3116a6@[10.0.1.3]> <40F45DAC.5070800@linuxpowered.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What about adding a new make target that *will* do what Joe user thinks 'make 
world' should do (i.e. build everything including the kernel and put it 
somewhere harmless for testing)? It could be 'make otherworld' and put all the 
stuff in /otherworld. Then you could make jokes about daemons 'from the other 
world' influencing system processes.

- Jason

Jon Disnard wrote:
> Brad Knowles wrote:
> 
>> At 11:49 PM +0200 2004-07-13, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>>  I think the problem here is that people type "make world" when
>>>  they shouldn't.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Right, but they don't know that, because almost all the 
>> documentation over the past ten years has said that this is the way to 
>> do things.  We can put "don't use 'make world'" in all the primary 
>> documentation you want, and maybe 1% of the users will ever see that, 
>> after they've been burned.
>>
>>     The way to fix this problem is to fix it.
>>
>>>  But removing the world target will make a lot of documentation
>>>  wrong, about 22900 pages of documentation according to google.
>>
>>
>>
>>     All that stuff is wrong anyway.  There's no reason we should 
>> continue to support that.
>>
>>>  Find a better solution please.
>>
>>
>>
>>     If you've got one, I'd love to hear it.  So far, I haven't heard 
>> of anything better.
>>
> I would suggest that unilateraly removing "make world" is not good, and 
> neither is retaining it in its present form.
> So in good spirit, could we sprink in some thing that displays a huge 
> blinking warning in bold about why this might be bad?
> If we (rather you commiters) decide to remove it, make a plan to do so 
> for 6.x.
> 
> This is a ballance:
> noob foot shoots who agrivate developers who speak of reading docs that 
> are wrong Vs the utility of this arguably hostile facility.
> 
> Where is the justification in any of it?
> 
> -Jon
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40F48F6B.5070201>