Subject: Re: another 1.1 to 1.1B (i386) upgrade report...
To: Greg A. Woods <>
From: Michael L. VanLoon -- <>
List: current-users
Date: 03/27/1996 01:45:17
>[ On Tue, March 26, 1996 at 18:56:01 (-0500), Chris G. Demetriou wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: another 1.1 to 1.1B (i386) upgrade report... 

>>[re: 'make build']
>> In other words, given all possible choices, i'd rather have it ripped
>> out than 'improved' to do something that it shouldn't be used to do.

>Do you have any alternate suggestions as to where/how a source upgrade
>procedure might be encoded?  Is not a dependency maintenance tool one of
>the better implementation environments for such a task?

I think his point was that it shouldn't be included as a standard part
of the OS.  Not to mention that even a dependency maintenance tool is
insufficient when the dependencies cannot be resolved -- the point
where you simply need to start with a binary snapshot upgrade and
current sources, then no radical make system is necessary.  I have to
throw my vote in with Chris on this one.

  Michael L. VanLoon                       
       --<  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x  >--
     NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4,
                           DEC PMAX (MIPS), DEC Alpha, PC532
     NetBSD ports in progress: VAX, Atari 68k, others...