On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:48:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
quoted text
> > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:33:23 +0100
> > From: Jason McIntyre <jmc@kerhand.co.uk>
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 03:22:12PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:48:30PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> > > > I think it might be better to create missing directories (especially 
> > > > /usr/obj) before creating the symlinks. This is one less opportunity for 
> > > > someone to mess up if /usr/obj is missing for some reason...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > would anyone like to ok this diff, or point out any problems with it?
> > > jmc
> > > 
> > 
> > no? so it's going in.
> 
> 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?

the idea is you make distrib-dirs before make obj. make obj will fail if
you are missing dirs, so it makes sense to have them in place before
making obj.

does that make sense or is there a flaw (the reason i asked daniel to
post this to tech in the first place)?

jmc