> > Try out this patch (I am testing it now so there might be issues with
> > it)... see if it does a better job on your old FreeBSD system with
> > your other hacks removed.
> only, the build gets past `csh', yay, but dies later with the problem
> I mentioned before with trying to use my FreeBSD includes files --
> Therefore I'm going to merge in other parts of my hack to build
> a `crossincludes' target along with your patch, start the build
Well, the build is somewhere after succesfully completing _cross-tools,
probably in _libraries, so I suspect my `makeinfo' workaround is no
longer required.
However, I'm curious about the two workaround-hacks I used:
TMAKE= ${TMAKEENV} ${MAKE} -f Makefile.inc1 -DBOOTSTRAPPING \
+ -DNOHTML -DNOINFO -DNOMAN -DNOPIC -DNOPROFILE -DNOSHARED \
-DNO_FORTRAN
XMAKE= ${XMAKEENV} ${MAKE} -f Makefile.inc1 -DNO_FORTRAN -DNO_GDB \
+ -DNOHTML -DNOINFO -DNOMAN -DNOPIC -DNOPROFILE -DNOSHARED \
-DBOOTSTRAPPING
What is there to gain by building html/info/manpages during these two
steps, other than an increased time to build? Unless I'm missing
something, aren't these only really needed in the WMAKE world build
stage?
And here I'm really ignorant -- does it make a difference in the
final result with -DNOPIC and -DNOPROFILE absent? Also -DNOSHARED,
but I am even less clear that this is good to have.
I copied these lines from the bootstrap-tools stage, and even if my
`makeinfo' problem is no longer, I'm wondering if these options are
worth including, in order to shorten the time spent building the
intermediate steps by cutting unused cruft. Obviously, if my build
completes, it's no longer vital for me to have them.
This may be a dorky question with an obvious answer. Bear with me,
for I know not what I'm doing.
thanks
barry bouwsma