Subject: Re: checkflist error codes
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Derek God3 <email@example.com>
Date: 11/05/2003 15:03:59
> Thus spake Alan Barrett ("AB> ") sometime Today...
> AB> From: Alan Barrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> AB> To: NetBSD current list <current-users@NetBSD.org>
> 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 build.sh
> 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.
For my embeded NetBSD, I extended the "obsolete"
machanism to allow me to subract from both the
sets and flist, however, this is file by file and
is a pain to maintain - would be nice to do by "package"