On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 01:03:05PM +0200, u-6...@aetey.se wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 08:10:31PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:04:34PM +0200, u-6...@aetey.se wrote: > > > Background: > > > > > > building an independent/standalone toolchain able to produce binaries > > > runnable on NetBSD > > > > Why don't you just run "build.sh -m <machine> tools" and use the result? > > Because I aim to be able to rebuild the tools without having > everything needed/assumed by "build.sh". > > The intention is to have an independent and self-contained toolchain, to > avoid any explicit or implicit restrictions/assumptions of the existing > building routines.
I don't understand. You will work very, very hard to construct a cross build framework as robust as build.sh, and why? Because you think there might be some "restrictions/assumptions" nobody might have noticed or be willing to fix? If you tell build.sh to build the tools, that's all it does: build an independent and self-contained toolchain. Everything you need ends up in the tooldir. No need to build any other parts of NetBSD. Why duplicate effort? Thor