> 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
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
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
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, 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
>
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 h
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 hierarchy
> > sudo make includes
> > sudo make libraries
> > make obj && ma
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 f
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 nonsta
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 includ
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 "unsubs
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 d
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
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
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
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".
Wh
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
--- 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 incsi
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
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, pl
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 libra
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
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
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 includ
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" the
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
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
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 incs
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
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, installkerne
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 :)
[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 in
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 o
> 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.
>
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.
> > >
> >
> 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...
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 perhap
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
> 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 inclu
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 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
41 matches
Mail list logo
