Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:59:51 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r286687 - head Message-ID: <55CC2447.7040902@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <40CDA168-F933-48B6-8F65-69D5F374B9E7@bsdimp.com> References: <201508121900.t7CJ0mhT080491@repo.freebsd.org> <55CC2114.4080904@freebsd.org> <40CDA168-F933-48B6-8F65-69D5F374B9E7@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/13/15 12:53 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >> On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:46 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@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. >> that's a lot.. Can we not just build/bin/sh itself? I was confused because you put the entry for the entire rescue. not the subdirectory. > No, we don’t. Check the logs before complaining. It builds the build-tools target > which is empty for the vast majority of rescue. It wasn’t obvious why it was there, > until I deleted it. Then it became obvious, but I thought I’d document why. do we build sh through rescue just to get a static binary? It seems a rather non-obvious way to get one. but if we are building it that way anyhow, maybe we should throw a whole bunch of other build time utils in there as well? might speed up the compile.. > > Warner >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55CC2447.7040902>