Hi Laurent ! > The Aboriginal Linux toolchains include a full-featured GNU make > binary that works and respects the paths. Of course, that does not > mean Busybox make should not be fixed, but if you need a working > make as a bootstrap, you can use it. > > I've personally never felt the need to use Busybox make, for two > reasons : > - make is a development tool and has its place on development > machines more than embedded boxes ; > - It happens that GNU make (as well as GNU tar, surprisingly) has > been cleanly written and cleanly packaged, compiles easily with the > uClibc as well as the glibc, and produces a decently sized binary > instead of the usual GNU behemoths. (I suspect a direct intervention > of the Lord into the FSF developer pool.) So whenever I need to build > a make, GNU make is actually quite usable.
Sorry, if I have some trouble to fully understand your message. May be translation problems or I missed some information it is based on ... The make 'm using is: make --version GNU Make 3.82 So what are the differences between Rob's, mine and the one you are mentioning? I thought, the Busybox "Makefile" called with "make" is in responsible of the tools executed and fail to use the system path in a correct manner. The make I'm using works pretty on all those Gentoo packages based on it. None of those builds fail. So it looks to me there is a wrong path assumption anywhere in the Busybox build process. May be the term "Busybox make" let you to the assumption I'm using a make build into Busybox (I don't know about such one). My intention was to say (with few words), I'm using the usual make with Busybox provided Makefile. So what did I get wrong? -- Harald _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
