On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:21:55 +0100 Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:38:02PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:53:47 -0400 > > John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 20:48, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 10:51:45 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 06 June 2006 23:33, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > > >> trhodes 2006-06-07 03:33:48 UTC > > > > >> > > > > >> FreeBSD src repository > > > > >> > > > > >> Modified files: > > > > >> . Makefile README > > > > >> Log: > > > > >> Simply running ``make world'' will bomb unless you dig up the > > > > >> undocumented HISTORICAL_MAKE_WORLD variable and set it. Note it > > > > >> here so the blow up will not really be a surprise to people who > > > > >> read. > > > > > > > > > > I thought the obfuscation was intentional as very few people should > > > > > be doing a 'make world' without a custom DESTDIR these days. > > > > > > > > Then there's no reason not to document it. > > > > > > > > Warning: FORCE_ROOT_INSTALL can render your system unusable by > > > > overwriting existing configuration files. Do not use it unless you > > > > are completely aware of the consequences. > > > > > > > > And yes, a descriptive name like FORCE_ROOT_INSTALL, not > > > > HISTORICAL_MAKE_WORLD. > > > > > > Describing it would subvert the intended obfuscation. > > > > > > > > Certainly people new to FreeBSD shouldn't be doing it; only those > > > > > with the command hardwired into their brains. We've had > > > > > buildworld/installworld since 2.2.5 (or 2.2.6) I think as I've only > > > > > had to do a 'make world' once to go from 2.2.2 to 2.2.6. :) > > > > > > > > FWIW, that's when the rot set in IMO. One of the nice things about > > > > FreeBSD *used* to be that to upgrade the system you just needed to do > > > > "make world". Now you have a lot more work. > > > > > > > > The only justification for this regression is that it's really > > > > difficult to get everything right. But that's a bug, not a feature. > > > > > > No, the justification is that 'make world' completely ignores the kernel > > > and > > > only handles userland, and an operating system is both a kernel and a > > > userland and that users should update those together. If you as a > > > developer > > > want to use make world you can either run the two commands back to back > > > or > > > you can put I_REALLY_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING_AND_WANT_TO_HOSE_MY_MACHINE in > > > make.conf or something. However, developers wanting to do this are in > > > the > > > _VAST_ minority and I'd much rather cater to the other 99% of the world. > > > > Hmmm. Perhaps a warning like this and then kill the > > HISTORICAL_MAKE_WORLD target and related docs? > > I don't like that. Our users should now be in the habit of not running > "make world", so I don't really see the win. They have needed to do > this since July 2004 (revisions 1.302 and 1.303), when a core hat was used > to achieve the situation prior to Tom's commit (see revision 1.304). I > don't see why this needs to change again, or how doing so serves the > user base. > > I suggest that the archives are consulted for the original discussion > re: this particular colour of bikeshed before we waste any more time. John already gave another good reason for why idea was bad, consider it dropped. Unless someone has a better fix? -- Tom Rhodes _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
