"Nathan J. Williams" <nathanw@wasabisystems.com> writes:
> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
> 
> > How about if it prints out a nice "WARNING: using build.conf" at the start?
> 
> If the feature is enough of a problem that it needs this warning, then
> it's enough of a problem that it shouldn't exist.

I didn't say it was a problem. YOU said it was. I offered to add such
a silly warning for your benefit, not mine.

> > Different people have different nice large bits of space mounted in
> > different places where they want to put their build arenas, where they
> > want their tar files stuffed when sets get built, etc. RELEASE,
> > DESTDIR, whether they one objdirs, etc. Typing in all that data over
> > and over and over again is silly.
> > 
> > However, one can't set it "just once" in our current setup.
> 
> I don't understand your objection to wrapper scripts.

Why should everyone on earth have to write one?

This is much like why people don't all install something like emacs by
hand but instead use pkgsrc.

Sure, everyone can install their own, but why should everyone have to
duplicate the work?

> They're flexible
> enough for the problem at hand,

It is more flexible if everyone installs emacs by hand...

> simple,

It is simple if everyone installs emacs by hand.

> and entirely customizable.

And indeed, it is entirely customizable if everyone installs emacs by
hand.

> It's much better for people to use an existing tool and
> language (sh) to adjust the behavior of a tool then to see "oh no, Yet
> Another Configuration Language".

I was not proposing another configuration language -- just sourcing in
some variable assignments. The change to build.sh would be about two
or three lines (three if you want the warning.)

By the way, the argument over this has now consumed more time than all
the problems that you'll ever face over this will consume for you
going forward.

> > Different machines probably have space in different places. This is
> > really a question of stuff like DESTDIR.
> 
> Or different users. Or different build farms or CS labs. Should there
> then be an /etc/build.conf, a ~/.build.conf, and a
> /mytree/src/build.conf?

Some people like /etc/rc.conf for setting their interface
addresses. Some like /etc/ifconfig.xxN. Is anyone harmed by this?
No. Does it make some people happier? Yes.

Not everything we do in NetBSD is about doing only That Which Is
Necessary. Saving people time, making things more convenient to use
or even more relaxing to use, is a plus as well.

I'm sure everyone on earth could write their own scripts to start and
stop daemons. Having "/etc/rc.d/foo restart" available is unnecessary,
does not do EVERYTHING one might possibly want, can sometimes cause
trouble, parses files in several locations (rc.conf, rc.conf.d, etc)
causing potential confusion, etc. Was it a bad idea to add it? Of
course not. Its convenient.

So, anyway, it would be very convenient if every user didn't need to
write a wrapper script but one could just set DESTDIR, RELEASEDIR,
etc. in a nice little file and have build.sh source it if it is
there. Might that cause trouble? Sure. ANYTHING can cause trouble. Is
it convenient? Yes. It is convenient.


-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com