Re: make includes
I made `includes' and then `libraries'. Now `buildworld' succeeded! Thanks. How did you know this? I read the makefiles. Is there a guide how to upgrade from stable to current? (src/UPDATING only mentions something about /usr/include/g++.) No. CURRENT is not really documented that way. Developers are supposed to Use the Source, Luke! :-) M -- o Mark Murray \_ O.\_Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Skipping certain buildworld stages (was: Re: make includes)
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 09:07:25AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
it's possible to achieve this with:
: make \
: -DNO_worldtmp -DNO_bootstrap-tools -DNO_cleanobj -DNO_obj \
: -DNO_build-tools -DNO_cross-tools \
: buildworld TARGET_ARCH=foo
Which in essence is equivalent to this sh(1) script:
: cd /whatever/usr/src
: for target in _includes _libraries _depend everything; do
: make -m `pwd`/share/mk -f Makefile.inc1 \
: ${target} TARGET_ARCH=foo
: done
Thanks!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:18:14PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:10:51PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Why change in the first place? What was wrong with 'make includes'? Why break POLA? They were broken. See commit log for share/mk/bsd.incs.mk,v 1.1 for a full story. I fail to see how they were broken from the rev 1.1 bsd.incs.mk log. Please read it more carefully. (Hint: not all includes have been installed). It looks like you just hyjacked the `includes' target. Why could you not have used `incbuild' and `incinstall'? Then includes is something like includes: incbuild incinstall Actually, from what I've read, I plan on renaming these targets to buildincludes and installincludes, and restoring the `includes' to mean build + install. I will do the same for all-man, maninstall (buildmanpages, installmanpages, manpages = build + install), etc. all would mean build* (build everything), and install = install* (similarly install everything). This would bring us the consistency in standard targets names, so that one doesn't need to remember that to all-man is build manpages, and includes - to build includes, and files (when we have bsd.files.mk) to build files. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg38359/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 06:43:01AM +, Hiten Pandya wrote: --- Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People might want to use it like that: make world mv /usr/include /usr/include.old Sorry to butt in; but wouldn't it be more good if this step was done by the build scripts itself? (refering to: mv /usr/include /usr/include.old) make incsinstall Nope. Some of us have custom stuff in /usr/include, and we can't force everyone to fix it by moving it under /usr/local/include. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg38360/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Tue, 14 May 2002, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:38:49PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: I really do not like this change, please return things such that the long-ingraned cd /usr/src ; make includes. I planned to fix this by changing make includes to print Unwarranted chumminess with implementation. What is your perfered way to get the results of (cd /usr/src ; make includes) ? I prefer not to do this. There are simpler methods to get broken headers, starting with rm -rf :). I prefer everyone to use (documented) user-level targets like world and install for installing includes, since it would be difficult to make the includes target safe for general use. I don't know what it really useful for. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:05:02PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: I prefer not to do this. There are simpler methods to get broken headers, starting with rm -rf :). I prefer everyone to use (documented) user-level targets like world and install for installing includes, since it would be difficult to make the includes target safe for general use. I don't know what it really useful for. `make includes' has been *invaluable* to time many times. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:59:19AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Actually, from what I've read, I plan on renaming these targets to buildincludes and installincludes, and restoring the `includes' to mean build + install. Thank you. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:05:02PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:38:49PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
I really do not like this change, please return things such that the
long-ingraned cd /usr/src ; make includes.
I planned to fix this by changing make includes to print
Unwarranted chumminess with implementation.
What is your perfered way to get the results of
(cd /usr/src ; make includes) ?
I prefer not to do this. There are simpler methods to get broken
headers, starting with rm -rf :). I prefer everyone to use (documented)
user-level targets like world and install for installing includes,
since it would be difficult to make the includes target safe for general
use. I don't know what it really useful for.
It's now more useful (incsinstall) than before, for developers. Imagine
you've modified the include file foo.h and want to try if bar compiles
with it. As incsinstall now works on per-makefile level, you can just
install this particular include (or group of related includes), and then
just cd to bar's directory, and try to make it. It is also useful as a
standard target so we don't forget to install some includes (which might
be needed to build libraries), like we did before.
(Of course, if the header is local, one might use -I${.CURDIR}, as many
bsd.lib.mk makefiles currently do. We can now drop these or similar
lines (see libbz2/Makefile for example), but I think they are still
useful in at least developer mode.
Cheers,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
msg38365/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
Hi, On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 06:05:27PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:18:04AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: That's rather hackish, and doesn't handle garbage other than includes. I usually find stale files by comparing my world with a world installed in a nonstandard DESTDIR. A mergemaster-like utility could automate this. Yes, I do this the same way actually. :-) For once I'd have to disagree with Bruce about the right way to do this. The right way is to have a packaging list, and to be able to pkg_upgrade from /usr/src, which would do an orderly removal of all of the files installed by an old world... Then we can start work on spliting the world into seperate packages. We could even automate the generation of the packaging list because we know everything in /usr/src is installed by an install target somewhere in bsd.*.mk. To answer the obvious questions: No, this is not possible at the moment. Yes, it is fairly easy to achieve. Regards, -Jeremy -- FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free... http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On 15-May-2002 Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2002, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:38:49PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: I really do not like this change, please return things such that the long-ingraned cd /usr/src ; make includes. I planned to fix this by changing make includes to print Unwarranted chumminess with implementation. What is your perfered way to get the results of (cd /usr/src ; make includes) ? I prefer not to do this. There are simpler methods to get broken headers, starting with rm -rf :). I prefer everyone to use (documented) user-level targets like world and install for installing includes, since it would be difficult to make the includes target safe for general use. I don't know what it really useful for. It's useful for a new arch that doesn't have make world yet. When I would update world on my sparc before gcc was bmake'd it went something like this: sudo make includes sudo make libraries make obj make depend make sudo make install To build and install a new world. -- John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ Power Users Use the Power to Serve! - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:26:29AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Almost correct. For the record and future ports:
It's useful for a new arch that doesn't have make world yet. When I would
update world on my sparc before gcc was bmake'd it went something like this:
sudo make hierarchy
sudo make includes
sudo make libraries
make obj make depend make
sudo make install
To build and install a new world.
With this simple patch,
%%%
--- Makefile.inc1~ Wed May 15 19:35:00 2002
+++ Makefile.inc1 Wed May 15 19:38:02 2002
@@ -330,6 +330,12 @@
.endif
WMAKE_TGTS+= _includes _libraries _depend everything
+.for __target in ${WMAKE_TGTS}
+.if defined(NO${__target})
+WMAKE_TGTS:= ${WMAKE_TGTS:N${__target}}
+.endif
+.endfor
+
buildworld: ${WMAKE_TGTS}
.ORDER: ${WMAKE_TGTS}
%%%
one can easily ``make buildworld TARGET_ARCH=foo -DNO_cross-tools''.
See the ``make -f Makefile.inc1 -V WMAKE_TGTS -DNO_cross-tools''
output for details. (Yet one simple patch might be required to
exclude gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_tools from the list of build-tools.)
Please let me know if you want me to commit this, or something
like that.
Cheers,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
msg38380/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Wed, 15 May 2002, David O'Brien wrote: Almost correct. For the record and future ports: [jhb wrote] It's useful for a new arch that doesn't have make world yet. When I would update world on my sparc before gcc was bmake'd it went something like this: sudo make hierarchy sudo make includes sudo make libraries What John wants is really these 2 steps. Includes and libraries form a usable subsset of the world, so it would be reasonable to have an end-user target for it. Hwowever, building that target robustly would involve a lot more than the above. All the tools for building the libraries would have to be built, and that wouldn't work in this case. make obj make depend make sudo make install To build and install a new world. Several other steps are missing. Mainly make obj before make libraries. make obj is now necessary before make includes. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:43:22PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: one can easily ``make buildworld TARGET_ARCH=foo -DNO_cross-tools''. I am now doing many cross buildworlds. Is there a target (used with -DNOCLEAN) to use to save time and resume a build at stage 4? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Skipping certain buildworld stages (was: Re: make includes)
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:18:15PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:43:22PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
one can easily ``make buildworld TARGET_ARCH=foo -DNO_cross-tools''.
I am now doing many cross buildworlds. Is there a target (used with
-DNOCLEAN) to use to save time and resume a build at stage 4?
With the patch I posted yesterday,
%%%
Index: Makefile.inc1
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/Makefile.inc1,v
retrieving revision 1.277
diff -u -r1.277 Makefile.inc1
--- Makefile.inc1 15 May 2002 16:29:44 - 1.277
+++ Makefile.inc1 16 May 2002 06:06:09 -
@@ -330,6 +330,12 @@
.endif
WMAKE_TGTS+= _includes _libraries _depend everything
+.for __target in ${WMAKE_TGTS}
+.if defined(NO${__target})
+WMAKE_TGTS:= ${WMAKE_TGTS:N${__target}}
+.endif
+.endfor
+
buildworld: ${WMAKE_TGTS}
.ORDER: ${WMAKE_TGTS}
%%%
it's possible to achieve this with:
: make \
: -DNO_worldtmp -DNO_bootstrap-tools -DNO_cleanobj -DNO_obj \
: -DNO_build-tools -DNO_cross-tools \
: buildworld TARGET_ARCH=foo
Which in essence is equivalent to this sh(1) script:
: cd /whatever/usr/src
: for target in _includes _libraries _depend everything; do
: make -m `pwd`/share/mk -f Makefile.inc1 \
: ${target} TARGET_ARCH=foo
: done
Cheers,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
msg38416/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
[CC: to -current as others may benefit from it too] On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:33:31PM +0200, Anders Andersson wrote: Hi, I write to you since you have been touching src/Makefile alot and so on. I sometimes want a fresh /usr/include and wipes it and does a: cd /usr/src make includes but that does not work anymore! It seems that it does the correct thing but not a single file is installed in /usr/include Do you have any clue whats going on? Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to includesinstall but that is too long. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg38306/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On 14-May-2002 (06:21:18/GMT) Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to
includesinstall but that is too long.
U, buildworld, installworld, buildkernel, installkernel...
It would be: buildinclude{s}, installinclude{s} just to be simmetric :)
And is only one (or two) character longer than installkernel...
my .02 EUR
Riccardo.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 08:45:59AM +0200, Riccardo Torrini wrote:
On 14-May-2002 (06:21:18/GMT) Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to
includesinstall but that is too long.
U, buildworld, installworld, buildkernel, installkernel...
It would be: buildinclude{s}, installinclude{s} just to be simmetric :)
And is only one (or two) character longer than installkernel...
Then all should similarly be renamed to build. I like the idea
of consistent naming. It's a pity we don't have synonyms in make(1).
build: buildprogram buildscripts buildfiles buildmanpages buildincludes
Then s/build/install/g.
build should probably be left as all for compatibility, I'm not sure.
Then we could say that we reserve target names all.* and install.*,
to avoid possible clashes.
I will see if I can implement something like that in a long term.
Cheers,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
msg38309/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to includesinstall but that is too long. I still prefer something like __private_part_of_installworld_to_install_headers_dont_use_directly. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 06:21:41PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to includesinstall but that is too long. I still prefer something like __private_part_of_installworld_to_install_headers_dont_use_directly. EPARSE; what does that mean? :-) incsinstall is the standard target which performs a part of a normal install -- installs C includes. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg38321/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 09:21:18AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to includesinstall but that is too long. Why change in the first place? What was wrong with 'make includes'? Why break POLA? -- Anders Andersson[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sanyusan Int. ABhttp://www.sanyusan.se/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 03:01:28PM +0200, Anders Andersson wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 09:21:18AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to includesinstall but that is too long. Why change in the first place? What was wrong with 'make includes'? Why break POLA? They were broken. See commit log for share/mk/bsd.incs.mk,v 1.1 for a full story. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg38329/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 06:21:41PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to includesinstall but that is too long. I still prefer something like __private_part_of_installworld_to_install_headers_dont_use_directly. EPARSE; what does that mean? :-) incsinstall is the standard target which performs a part of a normal install -- installs C includes. Installing includes just corrupts the host environment unless the new includes are consistent with the old libraries. If you know the build system, the includes and the libraries well enough to know when it is safe to use, then you know enough to never need it. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 11:32:19PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 06:21:41PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I'm still unsure about the name; I'd have liked to rename it to includesinstall but that is too long. I still prefer something like __private_part_of_installworld_to_install_headers_dont_use_directly. EPARSE; what does that mean? :-) incsinstall is the standard target which performs a part of a normal install -- installs C includes. Installing includes just corrupts the host environment unless the new includes are consistent with the old libraries. If you know the build system, the includes and the libraries well enough to know when it is safe to use, then you know enough to never need it. People might want to use it like that: make world mv /usr/include /usr/include.old make incsinstall To remove stale includes. Previous version had includes that both built and installed includes, I have just split it in two parts. (I will add the par-includes to Makefile.inc1 tomorrow, FWIW.) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg38336/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Tue, 14 May 2002 16:34:56 +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: People might want to use it like that: make world mv /usr/include /usr/include.old make incsinstall To remove stale includes. Previous version had includes that both built and installed includes, I have just split it in two parts. Pity we lost CLOBBER, which took care of this for you. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 11:32:19PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: Installing includes just corrupts the host environment unless the new includes are consistent with the old libraries. If you know the build system, the includes and the libraries well enough to know when it is safe to use, then you know enough to never need it. People might want to use it like that: make world mv /usr/include /usr/include.old make incsinstall To remove stale includes. Previous version had includes that both built and installed includes, I have just split it in two parts. That's rather hackish, and doesn't handle garbage other than includes. I usually find stale files by comparing my world with a world installed in a nonstandard DESTDIR. A mergemaster-like utility could automate this. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:18:04AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 11:32:19PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: Installing includes just corrupts the host environment unless the new includes are consistent with the old libraries. If you know the build system, the includes and the libraries well enough to know when it is safe to use, then you know enough to never need it. People might want to use it like that: make world mv /usr/include /usr/include.old make incsinstall To remove stale includes. Previous version had includes that both built and installed includes, I have just split it in two parts. That's rather hackish, and doesn't handle garbage other than includes. I usually find stale files by comparing my world with a world installed in a nonstandard DESTDIR. A mergemaster-like utility could automate this. Yes, I do this the same way actually. :-) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg38339/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 09:21:18AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I really do not like this change, please return things such that the long-ingraned cd /usr/src ; make includes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:10:51PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Why change in the first place? What was wrong with 'make includes'? Why break POLA? They were broken. See commit log for share/mk/bsd.incs.mk,v 1.1 for a full story. I fail to see how they were broken from the rev 1.1 bsd.incs.mk log. It looks like you just hyjacked the `includes' target. Why could you not have used `incbuild' and `incinstall'? Then includes is something like includes: incbuild incinstall To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
--- Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People might want to use it like that: make world mv /usr/include /usr/include.old Sorry to butt in; but wouldn't it be more good if this step was done by the build scripts itself? (refering to: mv /usr/include /usr/include.old) make incsinstall Regards. -- Hiten Pandya Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Public Key See complete mail headers for address information WWW: http://storm.uk.FreeBSD.org/~hiten/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Tue, 14 May 2002, David O'Brien wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 09:21:18AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Yes. make includes has been modified to mean build includes, and the new make incsinstall has been added to install them. So the correct sequence is make includes incsinstall. I really do not like this change, please return things such that the long-ingraned cd /usr/src ; make includes. I planned to fix this by changing make includes to print Unwarranted chumminess with implementation. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: make includes
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:38:49PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: I really do not like this change, please return things such that the long-ingraned cd /usr/src ; make includes. I planned to fix this by changing make includes to print Unwarranted chumminess with implementation. What is your perfered way to get the results of (cd /usr/src ; make includes) ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:31:58AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
[Someone wrote]
What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*?
Simple orthagonality. Ie, each bsd.*.mk file typically has a seperate
set of *{DIR/OWN/GRP/MODE} specs. bsd.inc.mk was cloned from another
bsd.*.mk file.
Well, I don't mind how it gets fixed, but it's very unorthogonal at
the moment having to set two sets of OWN/GRP variables in order to
make includes as non-root.
This shouldn't be a problem, because includes is an undocumented private
target in src/Makefile.inc1. Running it independently of buildworld
is usually wrong. You would have to set the two sets to run buildworld.
You would also have to set the other set that doesn't default to the BIN
set, i.e., the SHARE set. To set all the sets to different values, you
would also have to set the following sets:
KMOD, LIB (these mostly default to the BIN set)
DOC, INFO, MAN, NLS (these mostly default to the SHARE set)
There is a little too much orthogonality here.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 03:06:00PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:59:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP? I ran into this when trying to do a 'make includes' as a normal user. Oops, hit send too soon; more changes are required of the same form. Before I go to the trouble of doing those, I might as well get confirmation whether this is the right thing to do. This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 03:06:00PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:59:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP? I ran into this when trying to do a 'make includes' as a normal user. Oops, hit send too soon; more changes are required of the same form. Before I go to the trouble of doing those, I might as well get confirmation whether this is the right thing to do. This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them... it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current /usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations about, and got dropped into the cracks. The name INC* is not clear as to be correct, per BDE it probably should be HDR* or HDRS* (I specifically avoided that since existing Makefiles used that, not knowing that BDE had seperately been eyeing HDRS* for what I ended up calling INC*.) Since, other commiters have ignored direct, and inderect requests not to propogate this INC* experiment, and it now infects all the way back to at least 3.x* and possibly 4.*, making it near impossible to clean up :-(. So feel free to ignore this email and change src/include/Makefile any way you wish... -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them... it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current /usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations about, and got dropped into the cracks. What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:26:11AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile. And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them... it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current /usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations about, and got dropped into the cracks. What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*? Because headers are installed with NOBINMODE, not BINMODE :-) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:31:58AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being
used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile.
And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them...
it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current
/usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations
about, and got dropped into the cracks.
What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*?
Simple orthagonality. Ie, each bsd.*.mk file typically has a seperate
set of *{DIR/OWN/GRP/MODE} specs. bsd.inc.mk was cloned from another
bsd.*.mk file.
Well, I don't mind how it gets fixed, but it's very unorthogonal at
the moment having to set two sets of OWN/GRP variables in order to
make includes as non-root.
Someone tell me what they should be using and I'll fix it.
Kris
PGP signature
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:31:58AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
This was on my TODO. The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being
used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile.
And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them...
it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current
/usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations
about, and got dropped into the cracks.
What was the reasoning for a serperate owner specification from BIN*?
Simple orthagonality. Ie, each bsd.*.mk file typically has a seperate
set of *{DIR/OWN/GRP/MODE} specs. bsd.inc.mk was cloned from another
bsd.*.mk file.
Well, I don't mind how it gets fixed, but it's very unorthogonal at
the moment having to set two sets of OWN/GRP variables in order to
make includes as non-root.
Someone tell me what they should be using and I'll fix it.
Change bsd.own.mk to:
INCOWN?=${BINOWN}
INCGRP?=${BINGRP}
INCMODE?= ${NOBINMODE}
as a temporary hack until INC* and bsd.inc.mk is completed/gutted/replaced/
whatever.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'make includes' ownership patch
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:59:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP? I ran into this when trying to do a 'make includes' as a normal user. Oops, hit send too soon; more changes are required of the same form. Before I go to the trouble of doing those, I might as well get confirmation whether this is the right thing to do. Kris PGP signature
