> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:00:48PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > From: Daniel Dickman <[email protected]> > > > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:37:05 -0400 > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > i believe so. when i followed the existing order in release(8) but > > > without remembering to recreate /usr/obj first i got "/usr/obj does > > > not exist" for every symlink being created. > > > > Why did you remove /usr/obj in the first place? > > > > The point about running make distrib-dirs is not to cover up mistakes > > a user made, but to create new directories that were "created" because > > new stuff got added. > > right. so the step isn;t neccessary. but since it additionally covers > that particular user error, where's the harm? plus, as daniel mentioned, > it mirrors more closely the steps in making X.
There is great harm. The first person who extends the distrib-dirs target to depend on a /usr/obj already begin there is going to damage the tree of every person who is doing this wrong. > anyway, it is not really important. we can leave it if people think it's > not worth changing. on reflection, i'm inclined to think it probably > isn;t worth it. Please back it out.
