Subject: Re: another 1.1 to 1.1B (i386) upgrade report...
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@UX2.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 03/25/1996 23:04:50
> In any even I think it would be of paramount importance for final fixes
> to be made to the 'build' rule set during the release procedure to
> ensure that simply typing 'make build' will always upgrade a previous
> binary release to the new release from source without worry. This is
> indeed easy enough to test, provided you have a spare machine on which
> the previous binary release can be installed, and obviously at least
> some of us are able to do this.
In my opinion, this is unreasonable.
It's quite easy to get into a situation where 'make build' just can't
do this... (e.g.: need new config to build new kernel, need new libs
for new config, need new kernel for new libs.)
This is _exactly_ what binary snapshots and upgrades are for.
In my opinion -- and note that 'make build' is used in my release
build process -- i consider 'make build' to be used for building
identical, or slightly-changed sources into a working system.
If there is a serious dependency graph that needs to be handled, to
rebuild from sources, somebody should:
(1) document it to current-users, so that users can
do it themselves, by hand, if they really want to, and
(2) provide a binary snapshot.
Please, don't crowd 'make build' with this, and don't change the
top-level makefile as often as would be necessary to make this work in
the few 'serious' cases where it's actually possible.