Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:42:21 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New ACPI diffs ready for testing Message-ID: <20030428214221.GA1152@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030428164935.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030426022551.GB29244@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <XFMail.20030428164935.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 04:49:35PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 26-Apr-2003 Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > The best way to cross-build is by starting a cross-world, which you > > then abort after the headers are installed in the object tree. This > > should leave a usable set of cross-tools you can use for buildkernel. > > It would be nice if there was a 'buildtools' target that did just > enough to allow one to do a buildkernel. Maybe 'buildkerneltools' > and 'buildworldtools' targets where the latter let you cross-build > individual libraries or binaries Agreed. In multiple cases I just wanted to populate the object tree and I was forced to start a buildworld. I don't think you need the headers in the object tree for a kernel build though. BTW: If we add these targets, we may want to make sure that targets like "everything" actually use those bits. I noticed that a make everything does not do a cross-build. It may be pilot error. I can't recall. The point is that if you allow people to setup the object tree for cross-building, people will start to use targets that do partial builds (ie skip the part of populating the object tree) and expect those targets to actually do the cross-build. The build system will grow even more weirdness if we don't do that... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030428214221.GA1152>