On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:46:25PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, [email protected] wrote: > >My goal is among others to be able to make a corresponding operation given > >just a running NetBSD kernel and nothing in the "standard paths". My > >common sense and experience say that the standard tools are not > >applicable. > > I am not sure that you understand the NetBSD build system. It doesn't need
I am not yet familiar with it but I guess I understand pretty well what you and others say about it. > a running NetBSD kernel, and it doesn't need much in the standard paths > except for very common utilities such as cp, mv, mkdir, echo. If any of > these is a problem, then a new HOST_* variable can be added to point to a > suitable tool outside the standard paths, as we already do with HOST_SH, > HOST_CC, HOST_LD, and many more. I appreciate flexible and general tools, so it gets extra points in my eyes - but regrettably this does not make it the "right" tool for me. (e.g. it makes at least one assumption I not willing to accept - a large quite monolithic source tree - where the building knowledge seems to be embedded as interdependent makefiles). > >Looking from a different perspective, I am highly unsatisfied with the > >usual tools meant to manage software, in a much more broad sense than just > >on NetBSD. Of course I have my own tricks which I like better :) > > That seems fine. I wish you luck. Thanks for taking this positively. > I would like to understand whether build.sh fails on your system, and if so > what can be done to fix it, or whether build.sh works but you simply prefer > to do something else instead. Hope I made it clear, my choice is not based on an impression that build.sh is bad for the purposes it is meant to. Quite the contrary. If I encounter something which might help make it even better I will certainly report/suggest. Best regards, Rune
