On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Greywolf wrote:

> Thus spake Frederick Bruckman ("FB> ") sometime Today...
>
> FB> Well, since we don't support making sets with non-default options,
> FB> there doesn't seem to be much point at all in running checkflist. Nor
> FB> would it make much sense to try to support building custom sets, as
> FB> sysinstall wouldn't know how to deal with them.
>
> What, sysinstall runs off the checkflist stuff, too?  Or is it just static
> and not knowing how to deal with anything more than what we tell it?

I believe the purpose of "checkflist" is to make sure the sets are
correct. So what I'm trying to say, is if you're building without
cat pages, or without shared libs, or with the extra OpenSSL cipers,
you're not building "sets", so it's then pointless to run it. (I
presume, in that case, you're running "make distribution", then
tarring up or paxing in the result.) So, it should satisfy all parties
to not run "checkflist" for the MKanything=not-default case. Correct?

> I didn't think I was all that far off base with my request; guess I
> was.  Sorry.

Not sure where that's coming from. Since we do support options that
affect the build, we should at least let the build complete with those
options set. Binary installations (which is what "checkflist" is all
about), are a whole different story. I think it's obvious that the
current six sets are not adequate to reproduce every possible
combination of build options, and that any thoughts on that belong
in the discussion on syspkgs.

Frederick