Kevin Cousins writes:
> Feeling a little daring the other night, I applied the 1.3.1 source
> patches to my 1.3 source tree, then did "make -k" in /usr/src.  Until
> then, I was a userland-build virgin :)

You didn't do a make build.

This means that your include files, .mk files, etc., were not properly 
updated. That's why you had trouble.

Perry

> 
> [ Mind, running two hundred or so patches through the Emacs
>   'epatch-file' utility was a bit of a joke towards the end---it gets
>   very sllooowwwww! ]
> 
> Next morning, inspecting the build output, several slight problems
> were manifest:
> 
> 1. the compile of /usr/src/lib/libc/string/strftime.c warned about a
>    few function declarations that it didn't consider to be full
>    prototypes.  I worked this into shape by using ANSI prototypes
>    throughout that file instead of the K&R ones that I found there,
>    depending on the value of the __STDC__ macro (as is done throughout
>    much of the rest of the source tree).  Prior to that change, libc
>    wouldn't link in any of it's forms (.a, .po or .so);
> 
> 2. The build of gdb died because it tries to link to a file called 'gdb'
>    while there is already a source subdirectory called 'gdb' (build in
>    /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/gdb, and there there a ./gdb/ directory)!
>    D'oh!
> 
>    Also, I am still uncertain as to why but at some point,
>    /usr/bin/gdb seems to have been removed!  I still haven't found the
>    time to poke about and solve this little teaser (building into
>    another directory sounds like a good first cut), nor to get the 1.3
>    /usr/bin/gdb out of my archived tarballs;
> 
> 3. Compiling /usr/src/bin/csh/printf.c broke for some reason or other;
>    I seem to recall that it was for a reason similar to that outlined
>    above in 1. (/bin/csh was left intact), and
> 
> 4. /usr/src/sbin/mount_nfs/getmntopts.c broke for some reason, I
>    haven't yet looked into that, but shall later (though I still have
>    a working /sbin/mount_nfs).
> 
> Now:
> 
> a. Did I do any stupid thing(s) which caused those four breakages, or
>    is/are there some simple thing/s that I might have missed which
>    would have avoided the problems?
> 
> b. Has anyone else seen problems similar to these with the NetBSD/i386 
>    1.3.1 patches?
> 
> Otherwise, the whole userland build and install went impressively
> smoothly---at least from a virgin's perspective! :)
> 
> --Kevin.