Subject: make install and includes vs. domestic
To: None <>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/07/1999 17:48:04
I just noticed -- by accident -- that make install and make and make
includes at the top level seem to do _nothing_ with domestic.  This is

Currently, to build domestic bits, you have to make build, or do it by

When doing a minor update of the system, i.e. between two 'near'
versions of the source, previously you could do:

	make -k includes
	<wait a little bit>
	su then make -k includes
	<wait a little bit>
	make -k
	<go away for a long time>
	su then make -k install

used to do the right thing with no pain.  Yes, it might not generate
perfectly correct results w.r.t. domestic, but if you were doing a
rebuild soon after a previous build, it was OK.

In order to do the 'equivalent' now, you need to run twice the number
of commands at least, and if you want to fire off each 'stage' of the
build one at a time you have to spend a lot more time hand-holding
and/or watching the build.

'make build' is simply not a reasonable solution; it requires both the
ability to write to an object tree and the ability to install
software.  That is, if your objects are on NFS, you have to use
-root=0 or the equivalent.

Until we can actually do a complete build without privilege (which
should be the goal; the need to install things is broken), in my
opinion, even though they do the potentially-wrong thing, the
top-level build and install targets _should_ descend into domestic, or
warn loudly about it in a 'break the build unless you define a special
option indicating you know what's going on' kind of way.

Failing that, i'd settle for some flag that you could set in mk.conf
to reenable those targets.  _BUILD is almost the right thing, but it's
obviously meant for internal consumption only, and it has undesirable
side effects (e.g. disabling whatis.db generation.

Chris Demetriou - -
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.