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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
