Re: build.sh vs. environment and mk.conf

[Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli%teleca.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:45:36AM -0400, Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. wrote:
> On 24-Sep-08, at 3:14 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
> >   Would it be good or bad if the default mk.conf file
> >   was ignored by build.sh, and if you had to specify "-V
> >   MKCONF=/path/to/mk.conf" if your really wanted to use a mk.conf
> >   file?
> 
> That wouldn't matter too much to me because my wrapper script already  
> does that for me, but I think the sane default would be to use the  
> mk.conf file that's in the same source tree which is being built and  
> those who wish to use some other, perhaps shared, mk.conf file could  
> then use -V.  I think it's rather insane to use /etc/mk.conf as the  
> default, even on NetBSD hosted builds.

Defaulting to mk.conf in top level source tree sounds good for cross 
builders like me.

-Mikko