Subject: Re: checkflist error codes
To: Alan Barrett <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: current-users
Date: 11/05/2003 09:07:50
Thus spake Alan Barrett ("AB> ") sometime Today...

AB> From: Alan Barrett <>
AB> To: NetBSD current list <>
AB> Subject: Re: checkflist error codes
AB> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:54:06 +0200
AB> X-Spam-Level:
AB> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003, William Allen Simpson wrote:
AB> > The most annoying problem with checkflist is that it aborts the
AB> > process when there are extra files in the destdir.  Is there any reason
AB> > why?
AB> I imagine it's so that developers will (eventually) notice the
AB> problem and fix it.
AB> As a user, I just modify my copy of checkflist to treat certain types of
AB> inconsistencies as non-fatal.

[Not specifically to Alan!]

This still does not address the fact that the flist is static and not
conditional as to what you build for a distribution.  That needs
desperately to be addressed.  I'm unfortunately up to my ass in alligators
at the moment, so I have not the time but I have the motivation,
believe me.

Example:  I want to build a distribution with no /lib, /libexec or
/rescue, and a statically-linked root. Or I might want to build a pure
static distribution.  Or I might want to build a distribution that uses
compressed manual pages.  Or I might want to build a distribution which
will install nicely onto an embedded installation.

But checkflist bites my knee when I do that.  I find myself adding '-V
MAKEFLAGS=-i' to the build process, something which, as even a
lightweight-by-comparison developer/programmer, I *really* don't like

NetBSD: Feed The Computer.