In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201507010.11816-100000_at_sea.ntplx.net> Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org> writes: : On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000_at_sea.ntplx.net> : > Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org> writes: : > : How about NO_FOO[_INSTALL], where NO_FOO = no build and no install, : > : and NO_FOO_INSTALL just prevents the install. In theory, you could : > : build the complete system, then use NO_FOO_INSTALL instead of rm(1). : > : > What's wrong with making sure that NO_FOO will work in the install : > case to not install foo when it is set, even if it was unset in the : > build process? : : If it works or can be made to work, then nothing. Actually, looking at the code, it would cause devd to be built, but not installed without changes. Since NO_GXX is defined in the above scenario. I've started to think about how this might be fixed. It really is a 'don't build this because of toolchain depends' as a 'don't build his because I don't want this feature' intertwinglement. WarnerReceived on Mon Jun 20 2005 - 17:12:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:37 UTC