Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 19:18:06 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: phk@ref.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: nate@trout.sri.MT.net, current@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: TRUE and FALSE Message-ID: <199502230318.TAA26297@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199502230008.QAA06222@ref.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Feb 22, 95 04:08:46 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> > > > At what gain are we doing this? I believe it's a noble gain to have the
> > > > source tree compile w/out reference to /usr/include, but what does it
> > > > gain us? The only thing I can see where it's a big deal is building a
> > > > brand-new $(DESTDIR) tree. Other than that, most of the time I *want*
> > > > to use the files in /usr/include and NOT those in /usr/src (speaking as
> > > > a user-land kind of guy).
> > >
> > > "The only thing..."
> > >
> > > You are elected to release eng for 2.2 if you want to ... :-)
> >
> > chroot is your friend. ;)
>
> Yes, sure, but it's only a workaround.
> The fundamental problem is that the source-tree should be self-contained.
>
> Just think about the benefit of a "make world" which will not hose your
> c-compiler if the c-compiler source is sick...
Again.. serious .mk file munging use of what I called $TOOL_ROOT and
$EXPORT_ROOT solves this. Kinda like the way osf/1 builds.
$TOOL_ROOT and $EXPORT_ROOT default to $DESTDIR, they are they for
seperated for doing cross compiling. It means changing all the
things like ``MAKE= make'' to ``MAKE = ${TOOL_ROOT}/usr/bin/make''.
I just wish I had more time to go work on this again right now, but
it will have to wait, or someone else will have to do it. If someone
else wants to start looking at doing this I can give you *lots* of
pointers.
--
Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199502230318.TAA26297>