Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:49:04 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Werner Thie <werner@thieprojects.ch> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: crochet builds failing miserably for some day now with latest sources Message-ID: <69ACCDBA-2F05-4F97-9D10-821B97356BEE@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <519C5633.2080003@thieprojects.ch> References: <519B9A79.8090404@thieprojects.ch> <9E715E2A-15DE-4623-B9B9-A09590D1307D@kientzle.com> <519C5633.2080003@thieprojects.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 21, 2013, at 10:22 PM, Werner Thie wrote: > On 5/22/13 4:24 AM, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> On May 21, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Werner Thie wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi all >>>=20 >>> My last image for the BBone is >>>=20 >>> 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r250696M: Thu May 16 14:18:30 = CEST 2013 >>>=20 >>> I'm not able to build a complete image since then with newer = sources, the build is regularly failing with >>>=20 >>> =85. >>> make: illegal option -- J >>=20 >> There's been some discussion of this on the >> freebsd-current@ mailing list. It seems to occur >> when you have an old 'make' binary in the 'obj' >> tree. >>=20 >> First try removing just the old make binary: >>=20 >> $ rm = /home/wthie/proj/crochet-freebsd/work/obj/usr/local/src/make.i386/make >>=20 >> and if that is insufficient, try deleting Crochet's >> 'work' directory and doing a completely clean build >> from scratch: >>=20 >> $ rm -rf /home/wthie/proj/crochet-freebsd/work >=20 > Hi Tim >=20 > Sorry, this occurs WITH a completely clean crochet with the = ./crochet-freebsd/work directory removed before >=20 > /bin/sh crochet.sh -c config.sh >=20 > I suspected a problem in the cross dev area and rebuild xdev with >=20 > make xdev XDEV=3Darm XDEV_ARCH=3Darmv6 >=20 > which went through no problem, but as you stated, crochet uses the = xdev tools only for uboot builds. >=20 > =46rom UPDATING in the source tree I see, that bmake is now favored = over make as per 16th May. Is this the suspected change? I believe so. I have not had this problem here, but I'm running a relatively recent 10-CURRENT. You should ask on freebsd-current about this. I suspect the root problem affects people building 10-CURRENT on FreeBSD 9. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?69ACCDBA-2F05-4F97-9D10-821B97356BEE>