> On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 21:46, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On 8/13/15 3:00 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >>> Author: imp >>> Date: Wed Aug 12 19:00:47 2015 >>> New Revision: 286687 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/286687 >>> >>> Log: >>> Document build-tools better. Add rescue back because it builds /bin/sh >>> which has a build-tools target (see commit for how build-tools and >>> cross-tools differ). >> really? do we build ALL of rescue? that contains most of /bin and lots of >> /usr/bin. > > build-tools only builds /bin/sh and bin/tcsh : > > $ grep BUILDTOOLS rescue/rescue/Makefile > CRUNCH_BUILDTOOLS+= bin/sh > CRUNCH_BUILDTOOLS+= bin/csh > >> that's a lot.. Can we not just build/bin/sh itself? > > That would.. probably make more sense (especially in a post-projects/bmake > world)… but it needs better comments in Makefile.inc1 .
Actually, what we have is totally fine. There’s nothing to see here. This is now commented adequately in Makefile.inc1, and listing things in Makefile.inc1 is totally wrong other than rescue/rescue because rescue builds things with a different MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX. Rather than have a plethora of ‘reach overs’ to get the built build-tools, and create the crazy build dependencies, we waste < 2s of your time. If somebody wants to convert rescue.mk and bsd.crunchgen.mk to something more meta-mode friendly, that might be interesting, but it’s independent of Makefile.inc1 (mostly because that’s unused in Meta mode). Warner
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
