uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost (Valeriy E. Ushakov) writes: > Darrel <levitch%iglou.com@localhost> wrote: > >> I would guess that tools can be rebuilt for every build and it would >> just take up more time. > > See above. They *are* rebuilt for every build but for update builds > with no changes to the tools it takes (relatively) little time. I think there's a potential confusion in terminology. There are three separate things: 1) build the tools, regardless of whether there are valid objects (no -u, and/or removing the tools objdir). slow and 100% safe. 2) run make over the tools, and let make decide what to build based on expressed dependencies. fast and very safe (if not it's a bug). 3) don't try to build, even using make. zero time and unsafe, but typically on a release branch not a big deal. not a supported option. I think uwe@ is referring to case 1 and 2 together as "tools are built" in that in both cases the scripts run make. But 1 actually builds them, and 2 will typically verify that no objects are stable and not do much. Both are widely considered safe, unless one has radically changed the source tree (e.g. netbsd-5 to netbsd-6), in which case it might fail to build, but if it builds is still probably ok.
Attachment:
pgpaTWSAMErMM.pgp
Description: PGP signature