Why install -C include files?
Hi folks, Why are include files installed using -C instead of -c? This makes it harder to find stale includes. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:06:22 +0100, David Malone wrote:
> If you changed the date on header files which hadn't changed then
> next time you typed make on a project with carfully set up dependencies
> everything would end up getting recompiled.
That's certainly something one could argue as a problem worth working
around.
In that case, I'd really like to make this behaviour in the build
optional so that it's easy for FreeBSD developers to easily identify
stale includes.
Perhaps I could replace all instances of the -C option to install(8)
with ${INSTALLCOPY} and have INSTALLCOPY default to -C?
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:17:05 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> In that case, I'd really like to make this behaviour in the build
> optional so that it's easy for FreeBSD developers to easily identify
> stale includes.
>
> Perhaps I could replace all instances of the -C option to install(8)
> with ${INSTALLCOPY} and have INSTALLCOPY default to -C?
Hell, we already have COPY, we're just not using it. I'll submit
patches for review to the appropriate lists.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:18:56 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > Hell, we already have COPY, we're just not using it. I'll submit > patches for review to the appropriate lists. Hmmm. After a little more investigation, it seems I just need CLOBBER support, which was removed from Makefile.inc1 in rev 1.96 by Marcel. I'll use it locally and leave everyone in peace. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sheldon Hearn writes: : : : On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:48:36 CST, Warner Losh wrote: : : > : Why are include files installed using -C instead of -c? This makes it : > : harder to find stale includes. : > : > I've wanted to have a /etc/mtree/bsd.obsolete for a long time now... : : That would make me too nervous. All I really want is the assurance that : ``make world'' updates the mtime of every file it would have installed : if not present at install time. : : With revived CLOBBER support and COPY=-c, the only problem children are : symbolic links. Everything else can be hunted down with find -mtime X. The reason I'd like to see it isn't so that make world kills things automatically, but so that I could kill them (or at least find out what should be killed) on systems that had FreeBSD 1.0 installed on them, then upgraded, disk cloned, etc. At one point I had 4 machines that were created by this method from my original FreeBSD installation. However, I don't think I have anything further back than 2.2.8 or 3.2 as the base of a system right now due to EOL on spinning media, lapses in backup discipline, etc. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:58:02 CST, Warner Losh wrote: > The reason I'd like to see it isn't so that make world kills things > automatically, but so that I could kill them (or at least find out > what should be killed) on systems that had FreeBSD 1.0 installed on > them, then upgraded, disk cloned, etc. That's exactly what I'm talking about. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:48:36 CST, Warner Losh wrote: > : Why are include files installed using -C instead of -c? This makes it > : harder to find stale includes. > > I've wanted to have a /etc/mtree/bsd.obsolete for a long time now... That would make me too nervous. All I really want is the assurance that ``make world'' updates the mtime of every file it would have installed if not present at install time. With revived CLOBBER support and COPY=-c, the only problem children are symbolic links. Everything else can be hunted down with find -mtime X. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sheldon Hearn writes: : Why are include files installed using -C instead of -c? This makes it : harder to find stale includes. I've wanted to have a /etc/mtree/bsd.obsolete for a long time now... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:43:35PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > Why are include files installed using -C instead of -c? This makes it > harder to find stale includes. If you changed the date on header files which hadn't changed then next time you typed make on a project with carfully set up dependencies everything would end up getting recompiled. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:06:44PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:58:02 CST, Warner Losh wrote: > > > The reason I'd like to see it isn't so that make world kills things > > automatically, but so that I could kill them (or at least find out > > what should be killed) on systems that had FreeBSD 1.0 installed on > > them, then upgraded, disk cloned, etc. > > That's exactly what I'm talking about. :-) I would sure like to rely on this being the case, as I routinely remove anything from the system [s]bin directories that are not timestamped with the installworld date. I just _assumed_ that was proper to ensure that stale files are not left lingering after code has been moved/removed. Is this behaviour being changed for some reason? If it is, or if anyone is thinking about making installworld use -C everywhere, please don't. One notable exception to this seems to be /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 which uses -C for some reason. You don't want to remove _that_ by mistake :). -Brian To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Why install -C include files?
> > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:58:02 CST, Warner Losh wrote: > > > The reason I'd like to see it isn't so that make world kills things > > automatically, but so that I could kill them (or at least find out > > what should be killed) on systems that had FreeBSD 1.0 installed on > > them, then upgraded, disk cloned, etc. > > That's exactly what I'm talking about. :-) Every now and then, rather than doing ``make installworld'', do: # cd /usr # mv share share.not # mv include include.not # mv libdata libdata.not # cd src # make -m /usr/src/share/mk installworld # cd .. # rm -fr share.not include.not libdata.not This keeps things reasonably clean. > Ciao, > Sheldon. -- Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.freebsd-services.com/ Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
