On Friday 17 September 2010 21:35:57 Matthew Stoltenberg wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Vladimir Dronnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd propose to consider mangling make script making BB coreutils as > > 0-step and then use them to build the target "real" BB. 0-step BB > > should be compiled w/o help messages and depend on the stuff truly > > expected to be "core". That list to be defined. > > > > --Vladimir > > I propose you provide a shell script that serves as $CC until you can > compile gcc then compile BB... Then I don't even have to download a > binary toolchain... All I need is any old shell (like a liveCD > install that doesn't come with gcc, but does come with bash). > > I agree with Rod... A project shouldn't jump through hoops to make it > build in **any** environment conceivable. I absolutely love (hate) > the first line of almost every configure script "Checking if build > environment is sane"...
I'm big into figuring out what's _not_ our job, and then not doing it. If the build breaks, the build breaks. Having the build promptly _notice_ it broke is a reasonable goal. Making sure that no strange build environment will ever break the build partway through, no matter how strange or subtly insufficient it is, is neither feasible nor desirable. (Don't hide flaws, fail loudly.) Rob -- GPLv3: as worthy a successor as The Phantom Menace, as timely as Duke Nukem Forever, and as welcome as New Coke. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
