John Baldwin wrote this message on Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 14:36 -0400: > On Monday 02 October 2006 04:24, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Warner Losh wrote this message on Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 00:45 -0600: > > > In message: <20061002014320.GA80527_at_funkthat.com> > > > John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j_at_resnet.uoregon.edu> writes: > > > : I do make includes into the obj dir and use that.. (obviously you > > > : need to review is much more closely)... > > > > > > I think that we're talking past each other a little, so rather than > > > continue down that path, I'll wait for the patch to see what it does > > > and make suggested improvements. Maybe I'll implement the glue code I > > > was talking about too, but with a baby due any day now, maybe not. :-) > > > > The patch was in the original message... The one thing that I don't > > have the make-fu to do is: a) insert the buildincs before depend (so > > that the psuedo /usr/include is properly depended upon), and b) find > > the correct path to tools/install.sh so install doesn't chown/grp the > > files... > > > > Once a and b are solved, then it can be properly made part of > > bsd.lib.mk... and fully evaluated upon it's merits... > > > > btw, my original patch is at: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=722594+0+/usr/local/www/db/text/2006/freebsd-current/20061001.freebsd-current > > The sequence ru_at_ mentioned using 'make includes' is already in bsd.*.mk and > should be sufficient for what you need. And also run w/ a problem that if say, the library build for some reason failed, or something else, I end up w/ a broken /usr/include w/o any possibility of recovery... What if I'm building this library to be run on another box? You want me to tar up my local /usr/include, make includes, build the library, and then restore the backed up /usr/include? All just because people object to adding a few lines to bsd.lib.mk that will not change behavior that isn't already broken? -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."Received on Mon Oct 02 2006 - 17:27:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:01 UTC