-- 
Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com
BSEE (6/86) + BSChem (3/95) + BAEnglish (8/95) + $2.50 = mocha latte

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:06:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Hisashi T Fujinaka <htodd@twofifty.com>
To: Jim Wise <jwise@draga.com>
Subject: Re: Updating current in the wrong order after the make change.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Jim Wise wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> >>
> >> a "commands()" command was added to make's syntax a few days ago.
> >> what you need to do is update your make before you install the new .mk
> >> files.  here's what i'd do:
> >>
> >> # cd /usr/share/mk
> >> # cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs@anoncvs.netbsd.org:/cvsroot co -p -r1.126 sharesrc/share/mk/bsd.prog.mk > bsd.prog.mk
> >> # cd /usr/src/usr.bin/make
> >> # make
> >> # make install
> >>
> >> assuming, of course, that your source tree is in sync and that's the
> >> only problem.  :)
> >>
> >
> >Of course, one could argue that it should always be possible to rebuild
> >make even in these circumstances.  That is, /usr/src/usr.bin/make/Makefile
> >should not pull in any makefile fragments, or there should be an alternate
> >makefile in that directory that doesn't rely on /usr/share/mk/*.
>
> Right.  Naive little old me thought `well, why can't I use "make -f
> Makefile.boot" to get out of this mess, that's what it's for, right?'
>
> But apparently that's not what it's for -- unless you're on a sun.

As Launey Thomas pointed out to me, if you just add trace.o to
Makefile.boot, it works fine.

-- 
Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com
BSEE (6/86) + BSChem (3/95) + BAEnglish (8/95) + $2.50 = mocha latte