Subject: Re: Suggested addition to build.sh
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/17/2002 11:32:27
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, David Brownlee wrote:
> : > : That would be nice. While we're wishing, I'd really like to see a
> : > : top-level target to build a bootable sysinstall kernel with the
> : > : ramdisk and everything.
> : Any such target would run the 'make includes' and 'make && make
> : install' in lib as necessary. Possible force -D usage with it.
> I'd like to draw the line here.
> The point of build.sh is to provide a jumping-off point for building *the
> tree*. I was rather irked by some of the specializations, but accepted
> them as useful under the purpose of build.sh. This doesn't really fall
> under that.
> Sure, build.sh could be made to build a kernel or the toolchain, but once
> you enter userland or distrib, it's *up to you* to build what you want.
> build.sh is already too confusing and I really don't want to add to that.
But "distrib" doesn't stand alone very nicely. Even if I can manage to
build the sysinstall kernel one day, I can never remember how I did it
the next. It's usually easier to do "build.sh -R..." or "make release"
at the top (and then walk away for a long time). Whether it rates a
hook in "build.sh" or not, it would be really useful to have a
top-level target for building sysinstall. Such a target really does
belong at the top level, just like "distribution" or "release", which
it would be a subset of.