Re: a separate build of libc

[u-6hol%aetey.se@localhost]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:46:25PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, u-6hol%aetey.se@localhost wrote:
> >My goal is among others to be able to make a corresponding operation given
> >just a running NetBSD kernel and nothing in the "standard paths".  My
> >common sense and experience say that the standard tools are not
> >applicable.
> 
> I am not sure that you understand the NetBSD build system.  It doesn't need

I am not yet familiar with it but I guess I understand pretty well what
you and others say about it.

> a running NetBSD kernel, and it doesn't need much in the standard paths
> except for very common utilities such as cp, mv, mkdir, echo.  If any of
> these is a problem, then a new HOST_* variable can be added to point to a
> suitable tool outside the standard paths, as we already do with HOST_SH,
> HOST_CC, HOST_LD, and many more.

I appreciate flexible and general tools, so it gets extra points in
my eyes - but regrettably this does not make it the "right" tool for
me. (e.g. it makes at least one assumption I not willing to accept -
a large quite monolithic source tree - where the building knowledge
seems to be embedded as interdependent makefiles).

> >Looking from a different perspective, I am highly unsatisfied with the
> >usual tools meant to manage software, in a much more broad sense than just
> >on NetBSD. Of course I have my own tricks which I like better :)
> 
> That seems fine.  I wish you luck.

Thanks for taking this positively.

> I would like to understand whether build.sh fails on your system, and if so
> what can be done to fix it, or whether build.sh works but you simply prefer
> to do something else instead.

Hope I made it clear, my choice is not based on an impression that
build.sh is bad for the purposes it is meant to. Quite the contrary.

If I encounter something which might help make it even better I will
certainly report/suggest.

Best regards,
Rune