From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 30 20:26:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505EF37B401 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAD54400F for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:26:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (athlon.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.3]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h613QIDZ059011; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:26:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h613QIAH001023; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:26:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h613QHcw001022; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:26:17 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Tim Kientzle Message-ID: <20030701032617.GA983@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030630222353.GH57432@sunbay.com> <20030630222820.GV70590@roark.gnf.org> <20030630225206.GA57854@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20030630235402.GC70590@roark.gnf.org> <20030701003516.GA3516@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <3F00FB8A.10607@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F00FB8A.10607@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rescue/ broke cross compiles X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:26:21 -0000 On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 08:10:02PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > Looking through the build tools for /bin/sh, it's definitely > not worth the effort to try copying build tools around. > Although it sounds easy to add a build-tools target to > handle this, I'm not sure I see exactly how to do this. > Any suggestions? Add a build-tools target to the Makefile in rescue and have it recurse to the tools that have a build-tools target. Of course rescue needs to be added to Makefile.inc > For the longer term, perhaps it would be desirable to > simply eliminate as many of the build-tools as possible? Elimination can be good as a way to remove gratuitous complexity, but gratuitous elimination as a way to remove complexity is probably not the way to go. > For example, the attached is a pretty close substitute for > mkinit.c in the /bin/sh build. It's crude, but it seems to work > and eliminates the need to compile mkinit at build time. In general I think that the more portable the build tool, the better. If the shell script is not gross or overly ugly compared to the C program, then replacing the latter may not be a bad idea. I leave this for other to decide, unless there's only 1 build tool we need to handle for rescue and we can solve our problem by using the shell script instead of adding make logic. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net