Re: the mechanics of unpacking the source for a toolchain

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > >  but what about any of those components already existing in 
> > > an exploded directory (good example -- kernel source.)  what do 
> > > you do then?
> >
> > Assume it's already patched.  This will be the case if
> > you're using CVS, say.  Any patches you still need,
> > you should apply to your local tree (and scream bloody
> > murder until they make it into the CVS tree :-)
>
> wait a minute.  so if one of the source variables points, not to
> a tarball, but to an actual directory, you should assume that
> directory has already been patched?  why?  i'm not disagreeing,
> it's just not clear to me why you'd take this position.

This is exactly the case when you are working on one
of the packages (say, glibc) and are staying 'live'
by doing CVS updates.  You patch your tree once, if needed,
and it stays patched.  No need to duplicate it and repatch it with each build.
Also, since patching a live CVS tree may involve more handwork,
doing the patching automatically is problematic.
- Dan

--
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com