[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:45:36AM -0400, Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. wrote:
> On 24-Sep-08, at 3:14 AM, 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 wouldn't matter too much to me because my wrapper script already
> does that for me, but I think the sane default would be to use the
> mk.conf file that's in the same source tree which is being built and
> those who wish to use some other, perhaps shared, mk.conf file could
> then use -V. I think it's rather insane to use /etc/mk.conf as the
> default, even on NetBSD hosted builds.
Defaulting to mk.conf in top level source tree sounds good for cross
builders like me.
Main Index |
Thread Index |