Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf

To: current-users%NetBSD.org@localhost, tech-toolchain%NetBSD.org@localhost
Subject: Re: build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf
From: Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:59:51 +0200

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Alan Barrett wrote:
>     Would it be good or bad if the default mk.conf file
>     was ignored by build.sh, and if you had to specify "-V
>     MKCONF=/path/to/mk.conf" if your really wanted to use a mk.conf
>     file?

That variable name should be MAKECONF, not MKCONF.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

References:
- Re: build.sh vs. LD_RUN_PATH
  - From: Hubert Feyrer
- build.sh vs. LD_RUN_PATH
  - From: Hubert Feyrer
- Re: build.sh vs. LD_RUN_PATH
  - From: Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.
- Re: build.sh vs. LD_RUN_PATH
  - From: Robert Elz
- Re: build.sh vs. LD_RUN_PATH
  - From: Mikko Rapeli
- build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf
  - From: Alan Barrett

Prev by Date: Re: my build issues
Next by Date: Re: build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf
Previous by Thread: Re: build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf
Next by Thread: Re: build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index