David Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Mike
McCarty wrote:
>
>>David Kelly wrote:
>>
>>>Not useless, but you should know that they exist and that you have
>>>to override them.
>>
>>At first, I thought you actually meant what you wrote, and started to
>>send you an indignant response, but I suppose you mean "one should
>>know" rather than meaning to indicate that you think *I* don't know
>>that.
> Yes, my choice of words was imprecise. Didn't intend a specific person
> but the all-encompassing anonymous "one".
[snip]
Amusingly, there appeared a message just now over on the Debian
Linux e-mail group from a fellow who is doing cross-compiles of
Linux for other architectures, who is desperately trying to eliminate
all the default rules, because they are hampering his ability to
build simultaneously for more than one target architecture with one
make file.
I've always thought that having the "default rules" put into make
was a bad idea. I remember using make when those rules didn't exist,
and for a while I kept source for a make which didn't have them.
But the FSF has pushed so hard for making everything they do so
overburdened with extraneous trash, and have become so influential,
that I eventually gave up. I still do use a grep on my MSDOS machines
which is not burdened by the FSF junk.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Program Format
Started by ●June 19, 2006
Reply by ●June 27, 20062006-06-27
Reply by ●June 27, 20062006-06-27
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:04 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> But the FSF has pushed so hard for making everything they do so
> overburdened with extraneous trash, and have become so influential,
> that I eventually gave up.
Are you suggesting that the FSF has in fact, paradoxically fallen into
the trap of assuming that there is no architecture other than i86?
--
Cheers,
Paul B.
> But the FSF has pushed so hard for making everything they do so
> overburdened with extraneous trash, and have become so influential,
> that I eventually gave up.
Are you suggesting that the FSF has in fact, paradoxically fallen into
the trap of assuming that there is no architecture other than i86?
--
Cheers,
Paul B.
Reply by ●June 28, 20062006-06-28
Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:04 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>But the FSF has pushed so hard for making everything they do so
>>overburdened with extraneous trash, and have become so influential,
>>that I eventually gave up.
> Are you suggesting that the FSF has in fact, paradoxically fallen into
> the trap of assuming that there is no architecture other than i86?
>
No, not at all. But their tools gradually become more and more
rococo until they are nearly unusable. The introduction of "default
rules" happened in UNIX, and is not the fault of the FSF, except
in so far as they followed along.
In fact, GNU make has an option (-r) which turns off the default
rules.
But please tell me why a TEXT EDITOR needs to be larger than 4 MB?
$ ls -l /usr/bin/emacs
-rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4408492 Feb 4 2005 /usr/bin/emacs
This is getting severely off-topic.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:04 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>But the FSF has pushed so hard for making everything they do so
>>overburdened with extraneous trash, and have become so influential,
>>that I eventually gave up.
> Are you suggesting that the FSF has in fact, paradoxically fallen into
> the trap of assuming that there is no architecture other than i86?
>
No, not at all. But their tools gradually become more and more
rococo until they are nearly unusable. The introduction of "default
rules" happened in UNIX, and is not the fault of the FSF, except
in so far as they followed along.
In fact, GNU make has an option (-r) which turns off the default
rules.
But please tell me why a TEXT EDITOR needs to be larger than 4 MB?
$ ls -l /usr/bin/emacs
-rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4408492 Feb 4 2005 /usr/bin/emacs
This is getting severely off-topic.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Reply by ●June 28, 20062006-06-28
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 04:04:05PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> Amusingly, there appeared a message just now over on the Debian Linux
> e-mail group from a fellow who is doing cross-compiles of Linux for
> other architectures, who is desperately trying to eliminate all the
> default rules, because they are hampering his ability to build
> simultaneously for more than one target architecture with one make
> file.
Years ago I built custom versions of FreeBSD for an embedded x86
application but needed a few special tweaks, such as everything was
linked against shared libraries to share space and CPU memory.
FreeBSD's source is structured so as one can use a host to build a
different target. Once I had created a directory tree of my desired
target I chroot'ed into it to build the accessories such as Apache and
Perl, so that these could only find the tools I intended the target to
have rather than the tools and environment I was using to build them.
Just now for kicks I launched the following on my PII-450 FreeBSD
machine: "make TARGET_ARCH=sparc64 buildworld" and it seems to be
happily building the GNU toolchain for sparc64.
--
David Kelly N4HHE, d...@HiWAAY.net
=======================================================================Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
>
> Amusingly, there appeared a message just now over on the Debian Linux
> e-mail group from a fellow who is doing cross-compiles of Linux for
> other architectures, who is desperately trying to eliminate all the
> default rules, because they are hampering his ability to build
> simultaneously for more than one target architecture with one make
> file.
Years ago I built custom versions of FreeBSD for an embedded x86
application but needed a few special tweaks, such as everything was
linked against shared libraries to share space and CPU memory.
FreeBSD's source is structured so as one can use a host to build a
different target. Once I had created a directory tree of my desired
target I chroot'ed into it to build the accessories such as Apache and
Perl, so that these could only find the tools I intended the target to
have rather than the tools and environment I was using to build them.
Just now for kicks I launched the following on my PII-450 FreeBSD
machine: "make TARGET_ARCH=sparc64 buildworld" and it seems to be
happily building the GNU toolchain for sparc64.
--
David Kelly N4HHE, d...@HiWAAY.net
=======================================================================Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
