On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 08:10:02PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > Looking through the build tools for /bin/sh, it's definitely > not worth the effort to try copying build tools around. > Although it sounds easy to add a build-tools target to > handle this, I'm not sure I see exactly how to do this. > Any suggestions?
Add a build-tools target to the Makefile in rescue and have it recurse to the tools that have a build-tools target. Of course rescue needs to be added to Makefile.inc > For the longer term, perhaps it would be desirable to > simply eliminate as many of the build-tools as possible? Elimination can be good as a way to remove gratuitous complexity, but gratuitous elimination as a way to remove complexity is probably not the way to go. > For example, the attached is a pretty close substitute for > mkinit.c in the /bin/sh build. It's crude, but it seems to work > and eliminates the need to compile mkinit at build time. In general I think that the more portable the build tool, the better. If the shell script is not gross or overly ugly compared to the C program, then replacing the latter may not be a bad idea. I leave this for other to decide, unless there's only 1 build tool we need to handle for rescue and we can solve our problem by using the shell script instead of adding make logic. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
