On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 09:29:45AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> My personal opinion is that sysinstall.8 is a part of the base system
> and shouldn't be optional. If we take your suggestion, it means that
> installworld will sometimes install this manpage and sometimes it won't.
Bu-ut, as you point out...
> A good counter-argument is that installworld doesn't touch
> /stand/sysinstall, and therefore shouldn't touch the manpage either.
I think getting the sysinstall binary and manpages out of sync, which
is what the current configuration promises to do, is in itself a
> Idea: Maybe we need the release building process to do this instead?
> On all of my systems, the sysinstall binary came from a CD, and never
> got touched by any subsequent installworlds.
I had assumed that the 'release' target would do something like this
which explains why I was so puzzled by this change. I now understand
why some people wanted it.
> > Anyone have a good reason why everyone _must_ have src-release to
> > buildworld?
> I never thought of trying to do a buildworld with anything less than
> src-all. I guess my counter question is: Anyone have a good reason to
> do buildworlds *without* /usr/src/release/?
When I was CVSup'ing over a phone line to a notebook PC with a 750MB
HDD, I trimmed my supfile to only what I needed, no src-games, no
src-kerberosIV, no src-kerberos5, no src-release, etc.
But to reiterate, I think the best reason not to do this is the
potential for getting /stand/sysinstall and sysinstall(8) out of sync
on your system. That is Just Wrong. The manpage should only be
installed when /stand/sysinstall changes.
The fact that src-release is now required was just an annoyance since
I lost a build before I tracked it down. I woulda got over it. ;) I
had not even noticed the change on some builds over the weekend since
I do ususally grab src-release.
Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message