Subject: Re: bin/2932:
To: Erik Bertelsen <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/30/1997 15:59:00
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Erik Bertelsen wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Todd Vierling wrote:
> .. It costs much less if it's not there. Try the other option given--a
> .. lowercase `makefile' in the target directory with the contents below will
> .. suffice nicely, and let you zero in on _any_ directory in the tree you don't
> .. want built. Voila! And you didn't even have to _touch_ /etc/mk.conf. You
> .. could even put this somewhere like /usr/src/makefile.skip, and symlink to
> .. it.
> This will cause problems if /usr/src is shared between several machines
> with different requirements for which programs are to be installed.
> Actually Curt might be right here: the current build system has been
> built from many pieces and sources and need to redesigned. If that is
> done, I recommend to provide some mechanism for allowing a machine to
> only install those programs that it need.
Appraching this from a lsightly different angle...
Assuming we had a rebuilt build system, would we still be defining
options in /etc/mk.conf? If so, would the ability to define a list
of programs not to built in /etc/mk.conf be worth having?
If both of these are true, one could 'define the mk.conf
interface' now, and carry it over into whatver happens in future.
-- Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. --