On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Ted Lemon wrote:

> This begs the question, though: who are these customers of the target
> that are different than you or I?  Why are you arguing for an
> interpretation of what make build is used for that is different than
> the way you actually use it?

It's not different for that week or two where I do a number of builds in
quick succession, but when I wrote the message I had people like Erik Fair
and Steve Allen in mind.  I know that people do frequent builds of various
ports.

> I apologized in my previous message for thoughtlessly increasing the
> length of make build.  You have backed out my change.  I think that
> problem is solved.  I am also sorry that I presumed something about
> you for the purposes of rhetorical emphasis which wasn't true.

It's no trouble, Ted.  I wasn't offended, just curious as to why you
personalized my argument when in fact I was referring primarily to other
folks that I know do regular, frequent builds.

Re: the `upgrade' target idea, does anybody _not_ like this idea as
outlined in previous messages?

> I think having versioning on build tools would actually be a good
> thing in itself, as part of a more customizable install and upgrade
> process, so I still think the solution I proposed is a better
> long-term solution, but I do agree that it's more complex.  :')

Sure, I agree you've got what should be a better long-term solution.  I
think I'd actually prefer that it be a separate target from the standard
`build' target, just to minimize the time required for repetitive builds,
but I'm not inflexible there.  It would all depend on the impact to the
overall build time.

--scott