On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:21:17AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> When installing bmake from ports, the binary ends up in /usr/local/bin 
> and our top-level Makefile doesn't check there:
> 
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index e89a5b1..35ade48 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ TGTS+=      ${BITGTS}
>   .ORDER: buildkernel reinstallkernel
>   .ORDER: buildkernel reinstallkernel.debug
> 
> -PATH=  /sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin
> +PATH=  /sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin
> 
> 
> > bmake -m $PWD/share/mk buildkernel
> > env: bmake: No such file or directory
> > bmake: "/usr/img/freebsd/Makefile" line 136: warning: "/usr/bin/env -i 
> > PATH=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin bmake   __MAKE_CONF=/etc/make.conf  -f 
> > /dev/null -V MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX dummy" returned non-zero status
> > --- buildkernel ---
> > --- buildkernel ---
> > ERROR: Missing kernel configuration file(s) (NOIP).
> > *** [buildkernel] Error code 1
> >
> 
> Any objections against extending the PATH= in our top-level Makefile?

I can't express how bad I think that idea is.  You should be able to just use
a full path to the installed bmake.  I'm surprised you need -m.

-- Brooks

Attachment: pgpdbLwYbsiYt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to