On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Erik Bertelsen wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Todd Vierling wrote:
> 
> .. It costs much less if it's not there.  Try the other option given--a
> .. lowercase `makefile' in the target directory with the contents below will
> .. suffice nicely, and let you zero in on _any_ directory in the tree you don't
> .. want built.  Voila!  And you didn't even have to _touch_ /etc/mk.conf.  You
> .. could even put this somewhere like /usr/src/makefile.skip, and symlink to
> .. it.
> 
> This will cause problems if /usr/src is shared between several machines
> with different requirements for which programs are to be installed.
> 
> Actually Curt might be right here: the current build system has been
> built from many pieces and sources and need to redesigned. If that is
> done, I recommend to provide some mechanism for allowing a machine to
> only install those programs that it need.
> 
	Appraching this from a lsightly different angle...
	Assuming we had a rebuilt build system, would we still be defining
	options in /etc/mk.conf? If so, would the ability to define a list
	of programs not to built in /etc/mk.conf be worth having?

	If both of these are true, one could 'define the mk.conf
	interface' now, and carry it over into whatver happens in future.

		David/abs

	-- Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. --