Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Theo de Raadt (deraadtcvs.openbsd.org)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2010 - 12:28:01 CDT
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:00:48PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Dickman <didickmangmail.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:37:05 -0400
> > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't think this makes sense. I always start with doing a
> > > > make obj. It's way too easy to mess things things up if you forget to
> > > > do that step, so running anything in my source tree without doing make
> > > > obj first makes me very nervous.
> > > >
> > > > Does changing the order actually fix something?
> > >
> > > i believe so. when i followed the existing order in release(8) but
> > > without remembering to recreate /usr/obj first i got "/usr/obj does
> > > not exist" for every symlink being created.
> > Why did you remove /usr/obj in the first place?
> > The point about running make distrib-dirs is not to cover up mistakes
> > a user made, but to create new directories that were "created" because
> > new stuff got added.
> right. so the step isn;t neccessary. but since it additionally covers
> that particular user error, where's the harm? plus, as daniel mentioned,
> it mirrors more closely the steps in making X.
There is great harm. The first person who extends the distrib-dirs target
to depend on a /usr/obj already begin there is going to damage the tree
of every person who is doing this wrong.
> anyway, it is not really important. we can leave it if people think it's
> not worth changing. on reflection, i'm inclined to think it probably
> isn;t worth it.
Please back it out.