On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 04:30:02PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Thus spake John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> : > Make release is a very poor example b/c make release goes to great
> : > efforts to create
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:48:01PM -0800, David Schultz wrote:
> Thus spake Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I have long wondered why NOCLEAN isn't the default. There seem to
> > > be a few cases where it doesn't DTRT for kernel builds, but it
> > > seems a bit conservative to make increme
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Thus spake John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
: > Make release is a very poor example b/c make release goes to great
: > efforts to create a clean-room environment for a release. make
: > rerelease is quite help
Thus spake Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I have long wondered why NOCLEAN isn't the default. There seem to
> > be a few cases where it doesn't DTRT for kernel builds, but it
> > seems a bit conservative to make incremental world builds require
> > that an undocumented variable be defined.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:02:20PM -0800, David Schultz wrote:
> Thus spake John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Make release is a very poor example b/c make release goes to great
> > efforts to create a clean-room environment for a release. make
> > rerelease is quite helpful though and does do
Thus spake John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Make release is a very poor example b/c make release goes to great
> efforts to create a clean-room environment for a release. make
> rerelease is quite helpful though and does do what you want to
> restart a previous release. :) Also, make buildworl
