Alan Barrett <apb <at> cequrux.com> writes:

> 
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Luong wrote:
> > I don't want to run build.sh tools because that would create a new
> > set of tools right? My situation is that I already have the compiler,
> > linker,etc and want to use them to build the Netbsd tree. If I
> > set USETOOLS=no, would it use the default host tools(compiler,
> > linker,etc)? That I don't want either. I am running on a AMD linux
> > host machine and need to cross compile for MIps platform. I would
> > like to have a way to let NetBSD build know to pick my own compiler,
> > linker,...  to build the source tree.
> 
> You could probably get some combination of EXTERNAL_TOOLCHAIN and
> USETOOLS=never to work, but it's poorly documented, and doesn't interact
> well with build.sh.  Where did your own tools come from, how do you know
> that they will produce the correct output, and how do you plan to update
> them in future (since new versions of NetBSD will expect new versions of
> the tools, and will rely on NetBSD-specific changes to some tools)?
> 
> I strongly recommend just letting build.sh do all the hard work.  Yes,
> it will spend some time and disk space building tools that you think you
> don't need, but at least it will work, and it will be easy (and if if
> doesn't work, we should be able to help).
> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> 
> 

The tools I have is the gcc tools, modified by another group to support our CPU.
So I have only the binaries and when comparing to the tools generated by
build.sh, the binaries I have is smaller set which scatter around in the server.
So I guess I can not let build.sh do the work of building the tools because I
don't have their source code, and if I have source code, I am not sure if it is
simple to bring those code into the NetBsd tree so that build.sh can compile it.

Thanks,
-L