Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:35:16 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> Cc: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> Subject: Re: rescue/ broke cross compiles Message-ID: <20030701003516.GA3516@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20030630235402.GC70590@roark.gnf.org> References: <20030630222353.GH57432@sunbay.com> <20030630222820.GV70590@roark.gnf.org> <20030630225206.GA57854@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20030630235402.GC70590@roark.gnf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 04:54:02PM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > > > > That's why ru@ suggested to add a build-tools target. That way you > > populate the seperate tree in sync with the phases of a world, > > thereby avoiding the phase ordering problem. > > Is there a way to leverage the existing build-tools so we don't have > to do extra compiling that isn't necessary? Build tools are most of the time so small or trivial (gcc is probably the exception, before that perl probably was) that building them again is lost in creating the rescue bits itself. We could possibly copy the object directory of those tools that have build tools, but if there are paths embedded in generated scripts, we have to regenerate them anyway. What about this: rebuild the build tools to get things sorted out and working and then look if we can optimize? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030701003516.GA3516>