Re: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default? (was: Re: Cross-Development with NetBSD)
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 incremental world builds require that an undocumented variable be defined. Any ideas? It often causes problems during upgrades (but is usually fine when just rebuilding a non-updated tree) Sounds reasonable. Maybe it should be documented in build(7), though. Yet it's documented in make.conf(5). 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 msg47178/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default?
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 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 buildworld -DNOCLEAN
: isn't too shabby, though if I could do make TARGET_ARCH=alpha
: everything I would prefer that.
:
: 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. Any ideas?
Because the number of times that NOCLEAN screws you is high enough
that we don't want to hear the noise from novice users
I would like to point out that NOCLEAN is only safe to use if sources
did not change in between, or you know the nature of the change and
are sure that it does not require cleaning .OBJDIR. It is common to
see a problem with NOCLEAN caused by changes to makefiles. For
example, with this Makefile:
a: b c
cat ${.ALLSRC} ${.TARGET}
You first `make a' and later modify the Makefile to read:
a: c b
cat ${.ALLSRC} ${.TARGET}
If you don't clean .OBJDIR before repeating `make a', you'll get
the (`a' is up to date.) message, and the result will be wrong.
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
msg47181/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Why isn't NOCLEAN the default? (was: Re: Cross-Development with NetBSD)
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 buildworld -DNOCLEAN isn't too shabby, though if I could do make TARGET_ARCH=alpha everything I would prefer that. 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. Any ideas? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default? (was: Re: Cross-Development with NetBSD)
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 what you want to restart a previous release. :) Also, make buildworld -DNOCLEAN isn't too shabby, though if I could do make TARGET_ARCH=alpha everything I would prefer that. 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. Any ideas? It often causes problems during upgrades (but is usually fine when just rebuilding a non-updated tree) Kris msg47132/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default? (was: Re: Cross-Development with NetBSD)
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. Any ideas? It often causes problems during upgrades (but is usually fine when just rebuilding a non-updated tree) Sounds reasonable. Maybe it should be documented in build(7), though. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why isn't NOCLEAN the default?
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 helpful though and does do what you want to : restart a previous release. :) Also, make buildworld -DNOCLEAN : isn't too shabby, though if I could do make TARGET_ARCH=alpha : everything I would prefer that. : : 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. Any ideas? Because the number of times that NOCLEAN screws you is high enough that we don't want to hear the noise from novice users Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
