matthew green wrote:
> ick.  this would (seem to) spread all the include files in to the
> various parts of the tree that need them.  that's horrible.  i'd
> really just like what i suggested above.

Oh, well... I thought that would be the common reaction. I'm not out to change
the *whole* world, just the part I come into contact with! 8-). Or at least
the part that causes grief. And NetBSD include files do that. 8-(.

> but what *other* problems crop up?  your suggestion seems to be
> ripe for those bugs to infest.  it seems too complicated for the
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But the "bugs" that *are* cropping up are just that include files are not being
updated when they should be.

> desired result.  a little user education is what is really needed.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or a little change to a makefile or two?

> i can't feel sorry for people compiling the full netbsd tree who
> aren't at least aware of the issues involved -- it is just too big.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I, for one, can't tell *why* include files have changed, so I have no idea
what to rebuild. I would prefer to let the makefiles do this for me, but
I don't think that the '${MAKE} cleandir' in /usr/src/Makefile below the
build: target is appropriate. I think the build: target should be rebuild:.

> it is just too big.

And to do a '${MAKE} cleandir' _just in case_ is not my idea of fun.

> no, it's not.  that's why people *must* be aware of the issues
> involved with building something as large as the full netbsd tree,
> else they will just lose one day (hell, even if you do know what
> you're doing, you'll lose one day  :-)

Granted. 

> 
> i must admit that i had the same reaction to your original proposal
> as chris did.

Hmm. He didn't respond.
> 
> .mrg.

Thanks for the response, but do you even accept that there is a problem?

Regards

John Birrell