On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:20:30PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:48:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:33:23 +0100 > > > From: Jason McIntyre <[email protected]> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 03:22:12PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:48:30PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote: > > > > > I think it might be better to create missing directories (especially > > > > > /usr/obj) before creating the symlinks. This is one less opportunity > > > > > for > > > > > someone to mess up if /usr/obj is missing for some reason... > > > > > > > > > > > > > would anyone like to ok this diff, or point out any problems with it? > > > > jmc > > > > > > > > > > no? so it's going in. > > > > Sorry, I don't think this makes sense. I always start with doing a > > make obj. It's way too easy to mess things things up if you forget to > > do that step, so running anything in my source tree without doing make > > obj first makes me very nervous. > > > > Does changing the order actually fix something? > > the idea is you make distrib-dirs before make obj. make obj will fail if > you are missing dirs,
really? obj dirs are for source building, distrib dirs are where the resulting files go. I don't think 'make obj' will fail without 'make distrib-dirs' first, but perhaps 'make build' will. or do you have a specific example? > so it makes sense to have them in place before > making obj. > > does that make sense or is there a flaw (the reason i asked daniel to > post this to tech in the first place)? > > jmc -- [email protected] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
