Subject: Re: make update == make broken
To: Sean Davis <>
From: Sverre Froyen <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/24/2005 11:26:05
On Friday 24 June 2005 08:27, Sean Davis wrote:

> Needing another machine just for package builds is silly. No other *NIX OS
> requires that. That's just as silly as requiring a full NetBSD release to
> build one package (ala pkg_comp). If FreeBSD can do this in a sane manner,
> with portupgrade (however it works)... so can pkgsrc. If NetBSD isn't going
> to provide up to date binary packages for every branch (which would require
> quite a lot of build hardware)... then NetBSD needs to provide a means for
> updating a package without removing everything first, for people who want
> to keep their system usable until the package is ready to install.

It would be nice, but there are probably good reasons for why not, is to 
completely separate 'make' from 'make install'.  At the moment, doing a 
'make' on one package implies 'make install' on all its prerequisites.  If, 
somehow, a 'make' only implied a 'make' on the prerequisites, the 'make 
install', 'make update', etc. could be done after we were sure that the 
complete build was good.