Re: renamed rumprun toolchain available

  • From: Martin Lucina <martin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rumpkernel-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:45:28 +0200

On Friday, 03.07.2015 at 11:10, Antti Kantee wrote:

On 03/07/15 10:01, Martin Lucina wrote:
Given that configure will just work out CC et al correctly now, do you mind
if I remove the -configure, -make and -gmake wrappers?

-configure, sure, but we can't assume that everything on the planet
uses gnu autoconf, and therefore the case for -{g,}make remains.

I guess so, altough -{g,}make sort of send the message "you should always
use that instead of just make" which is not correct. Anyhow, let's see, if
it confuses people we can remove it later.

Why is it not correct?

Because the -{g,}make wrapper takes a wild guess and assumes that setting
CC= and CXX= is sufficient for a Makefile-based build to work.

It'll only work for Makefiles that honour CC and CXX. I've seen people
hardcode "gcc" in rules.

What about AS? CPP? Again, what if they're hardcoded?

It'll be actively harmful if you run it on a Makefile that was previously
(correctly) generated with ./configure --host=, you're using libtool and
your compilers don't match up. (BTDT, you get the obscure "libtool cannot
somethingorother-with-tags error)

etc. etc.

So, I think it's a case of "too much magic" with a "not good enough"
result. If whatever you're building is using a handmade Makefile, then you
should probably go read it and figure out what needs to be set explicitly,
which you can do in a "packaging" Makefile that calls the real one.


Other related posts: