things like xasprintf() into xfuncs.c, remove xprint_file_by_name() (it only
had one user), clean up lots of #includes... General cleanup pass. What I've
been doing for the last couple days.
And it conflicts! I've removed httpd.c from this checkin due to somebody else
touching that file. It builds for me. I have to catch a bus. (Now you know
why I'm looking forward to Mercurial.)
moved the contents of libbb/bb_echo.c back into coreutils/echo.c,
which is a more reasonable place for them than libbb. this
forces anyone who wants echo and test to be builtin to ash to
also have them available as applets. their cost is very small,
and the number of people who wouldn't want them as applets is
also very small.
added warning about shell builtins vs. CONFIG_FEATURE_SH_STANDALONE_SHELL,
which conflicts with their use.
thanks to nathanael copa for debugging help.
some string size optimization in test.c may have been lost with
this commit, but this is a good new baseline.
as far as I can tell, are no longer relevant. Modern busybox refuses to
build under libc5 (there's a specific test and #error for that), and
I'm not sure building against 2.1 kernel headers on Alpha was ever relevant.
I'm happy to put any of this back if anybody can point to a real need for it,
but if so we need to specifically document what environment is being
compensated for. (And we should quarrantine the build environment code
into one place, anyway. Maybe "quirks.h" for known compiler and
libc quirks?)
Hi!
I've created a patch to busybox' build system to allow building it in
separate tree in a manner similar to kbuild from kernel version 2.6.
That is, one runs command like
'make O=/build/some/where/for/specific/target/and/options'
and everything is built in this exact directory, provided that it exists.
I understand that applyingc such invasive changes during 'release
candidates' stage of development is at best unwise. So, i'm currently
asking for comments about this patch, starting from whether such thing
is needed at all to whether it coded properly.
'make check' should work now, and one make creates Makefile in build
directory, so one can run 'make' in build directory after that.
One possible caveat is that if we build in some directory other than
source one, the source directory should be 'distclean'ed first.
egor
