Don't know how to make /usr/ports/dns/bind96/work/.build....
Dan Mahoney, System Admin
danm at prime.gushi.org
Wed Jul 29 20:41:05 UTC 2009
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Doug Barton wrote:
> Mel Flynn wrote:
>> On Wednesday 29 July 2009 10:57:05 Doug Barton wrote:
>>> Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>>>> I believe Mel is right here. 'make clean ; make config ; make' worked
>>>>> for me.
>>>> As does a second make after getting this error, but it's nonintuitive,
>>>> and probably a ports bug.
>>> I'm not sure why 'make clean' is nonintuitive in the context of
>>> changing OPTIONS. What is your expectation of how it should work?
>> What he means is that make without arguments or make install as per handbook,
>> will build the build target which will invoke the config target if OPTIONS
>> changed or no options file is found.
> In the original post the build was already done, but it had been done
> with a different set of OPTIONS choices. My question is, why is
> running 'make clean' in the scenario of:
> 1. build
> 2. change options
> [make clean should happen here]
> 3. install
> not intuitive?
Because in my case, the thing was already "clean" beforehand? Two
systems, one 6.4-PRERELEASE (6.4 release, really, it missed the release
date by hours), the other 6.4-STABLE. Both exhibit this with a ports tree
cvsupped hours before this report.
make clean (or even make distclean), make rmconfig, then make still gives
me this issue.
"run clean after changing options" is intuitive and is common sense, yes.
"run clean after running config and before building code that you haven't
built before" does not make sense.
On a virgin port, you are thrown into the options screen by default unless
you have BATCH set. That's the counterintuitive part.
"Happy, Sad, Happy, Sad, Happy, Sad, Happy, Intruiged! I've never been so
in touch with my emotions!"
-AndrAIa as Hexadecimal, Reboot Episode 3.2.3
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
More information about the freebsd-questions