Subject: Re: build.sh "problem"
To: None <atatat@atatdot.net>
From: James Chacon <jchacon@genuity.net>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 12/03/2001 16:57:21
-b doens't build beyond the point of bootstrapping make. It should be in
$TOOLDIR/bin
Also note that alpha isn't a converted platform for the new toolchain so
build.sh isn't technially supported yet for that. (Of course if you're testing
to work on the conversion then go for it :-)
James
>i just tried to use build.sh for the first time and i ran into two
>problems. i'll start by saying this:
>
># uname -a
>NetBSD tweedlebsd 1.5Y NetBSD 1.5Y (FROGS) #21: Sat Oct 6 19:06:01 EDT 2001 andrew@tweedlebsd:/usr/src/sys/arch/alpha/compile/FROGS alpha
># ident build.sh
>build.sh:
> $NetBSD: build.sh,v 1.27 2001/11/26 05:57:33 jmc Exp $
> $NetBSD: build.sh,v 1.27 2001/11/26 05:57:33 jmc Exp $
># TZ=UCT ls -lT .updated
>-rw-rw-r-- 1 root wsrc 9 Nov 27 14:38:54 2001 .updated
>
>the problems:
>
>(1) there's a small chunk of code that reads
>
> # Remove the target directories.
> if $do_removedirs; then
> for f in $removedirs; do
> echo "===> Removing $f"
> $runcmd rm -r -f $f
> done
> fi
>
>which emits a rather ponderous error message "rm: /usr/dest: Device
>busy". i have /usr/dest mounted over nfs because i wasted all my
>local disk space doing other silly things. i don't know if anyone
>really cares, but what i normally do in situations where i need to
>remove stuff like this is
>
>(
> cd $DESTDIR
> mkdir .trash
> mv * .trash
> mv `find .?* -name .. -o -print -prune` .trash
> rm -rf .trash
>)
>
>since that's mount point agnostic.
>
>(2) after i started build.sh like this:
>
> # RD=`echo /var/snap/snap-`uname -r`-`cat .updated`
> # ./build.sh -b -d -r -D/usr/dest -R $RD
>
>build.sh proceeded to print out
>
> ===> Bootstrapping nbmake
> /usr/src/tools/obj.alpha -> /usr/obj/alpha-on-alpha/tools.alpha
> ===> DESTDIR path: /usr/dest
> ===> TOOLDIR path: /usr/src/tools-alpha
> ===> Removing /usr/src/tools-alpha
> ===> Removing /usr/dest
> rm: /usr/dest: Device busy
>
>and then it was done. uh...there should be more than that, no? the
>only thing i could think of was that specifying -b might perhaps cause
>it to do less work, but it didn't even come close to building nbmake
>for me, much less a wrapper script or anything else. huh?
>
>--
>|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
>codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
>twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
>andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
>
>
>
>