svn commit: r286687 - head

[Garrett Cooper]

On Aug 12, 2015, at 21:59, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 8/13/15 12:53 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:46 PM, Julian Elischer <julian at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 8/13/15 3:00 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>> Author: imp
>>>> Date: Wed Aug 12 19:00:47 2015
>>>> New Revision: 286687
>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/286687
>>>> 
>>>> Log:
>>>>   Document build-tools better. Add rescue back because it builds /bin/sh
>>>>   which has a build-tools target (see commit for how build-tools and
>>>>   cross-tools differ).
>>> really? do we build ALL of rescue? that contains most of /bin and lots of /usr/bin.
>>> that's  a lot..   Can we not just build/bin/sh itself?
> I was confused because you put the entry for the entire rescue. not the subdirectory.
>> No, we don’t. Check the logs before complaining. It builds the build-tools target
>> which is empty for the vast majority of rescue. It wasn’t obvious why it was there,
>> until I deleted it. Then it became obvious, but I thought I’d document why.
> 
> do we build sh through rescue just to get a static binary?
> It seems a rather non-obvious way to get one. but if we are building it that way anyhow,
> maybe we should throw a whole bunch of other build time utils in there as well?
> might speed up the compile..

No. It’s only building bits and pieces needed to bootstrap /bin/sh and /bin/tcsh for /rescue/rescue .