Re: build.sh | tools | version

[Darrel <levitch%iglou.com@localhost>]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Greg Troxel wrote:

> Darrel <levitch%iglou.com@localhost> writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The option -u to build.sh causes a reasonably fast build even with
> > this old machine that I am using at the moment; however, how often, if
> > ever, do I want to build tools again?  If I changed from netbsd-6 to
> > current would -u be best left out?  Or had I been at netbsd-5 and
> > changed to netbsd-6
> > would I build tools?
> >
> > I would guess that tools can be rebuilt for every build and it would
> > just take up more time.
>
> In theory -u lets the normal make rules run, and is always ok.
>
> In practice there are two issues:
>
>  1) if the source tree has huge changes, the build might fail because of
>  old objects that the new makefiles don't know about
>
>  2) there might be bugs in the update logic

Does some of the update logic overlap etcupdate?  When I ran etcupdate(8) 
it prompted for me to install sets that build.sh had installed a minute or 
two before.  After some more experience, I plan to consider sysbuild.

> In my experience 1 is more common than 2.
>
> I do update builds all the time.  I keep separate source trees and
> objdirs for 5/6/current.  But if you have one tree and move from 5->6 I
> would definitely start fresh (rm -rf objdir tooldir releasedir).

This is what I suspected.  Thanks for the good information!

Darrel