Subject: Re: why not "make includes" before "make do-tools" for build.sh?
To: Ben Harris <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/08/2003 18:40:19
[ On Thursday, May 8, 2003 at 23:07:42 (+0100), Ben Harris wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: why not "make includes" before "make do-tools" for build.sh?
> Yes, but you were suggesting that nbinstall wasn't needed for "make
> includes", for which it _is_ necessary to get stuff right. "make includes"
> doesn't install into $TOOLDIR, it installs into $DESTDIR.
Ah, yes, of course!
This is my first more in-depth encounter with build.sh and I really need
to do a full walk-through so that I can get the different steps straight
in my head, including all the details of how the host tools are
configured and built. Prior to this I've just looked at it from quite
far up and it has "just worked".
> Hrm. In that case something was more seriously wrong. Building the tools
> shouldn't look at the headers in $DESTDIR at all. It uses some headers from
> the source tree, but they should be used in-place. After all, on a fresh
> build, $DESTDIR is empty when the tools get built.
Indeed, that's what I thought....
> I'd like to try to reproduce your problem, but my only convenient big build
> box runs Linux, and I don't think the 1.6 branch will build on a Linux
> host. I can try it with -current if you give me a recipe, but I suspect
> enough has changed that it'll behave differently.
I will get a chance to reproduce the problem early next week when I try
a cross-build for sparc from this same source tree into a fresh set of
TOOLDIR, DESTDIR, and RELEASEDIR. I will undo my hack to the top-level
Makefile BUILDTARGETs setting and I can then reproduce my typo in the
header and see exactly where it fails first. This time I'll keep a
typescript log! :-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>