status of WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL
bf1783 at googlemail.com
Fri Mar 11 01:43:02 UTC 2011
> >> > just wanted to ask what the current situation on WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL is? it
> >> > seems the option gets completely ignored after a recent commit.
I thought that Alex was going to follow up on this (cf.
http://markmail.org/message/bkbygrx5z5ascukh ) with Warner.
> >> > should src.conf be adjusted to mention that WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL == noop or
> >> > should the option be completely removed?
Please, no. Just turn the bits of it that were disabled back on, and
finish implementing it, as the two of you suggested earlier.
Especially since the default installer may be changed, and most people
may not need or want it.
> >> >
> >> > also in usr.sbin/Makefile, the sysinstall entry should be moved upwards to the
> >> > other non-optional build directories imo.
> >> Â Â The build didn't even really function when specifying
> >> WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL before Nate's recent commits -- so why worry about
> >> the state of things?
> > due to inconsistency? src.conf says WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL will not build
> > sysinstall(1). that's obviously wrong.
> I think this context was forgotten:
Yes, please preserve the context next time.
> $ find /usr/src/ -name 'Makefile*' | xargs grep WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL
> $ echo $?
> $ svn info /usr/src/ | grep Revision | sed 's,Revision: ,,'
> Doesn't look like this sentinel is honored anywhere.
? bsd.own.mk, where it's transformed into a MK_SYSINSTALL value that
is referenced elsewhere, although not everywhere it should be. But
you know this already, as shown in your previous patches!
More information about the freebsd-current