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

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 09:38:07AM +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
 > > 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.

That sounds like a good default in general, not just for cross builds.

The source tree ought to be standalone and it ought not to require
extra effort to have multiple trees configured independently, even if
they're all used for native builds.

Unforunately it would create a serious migration problem. Maybe if
/etc/mk.conf exists and ./mk.conf doesn't, and nothing was set to
alter the default behavior, build.sh could make a symlink.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost