This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: "cd dir && $(MAKE)", not "cd dir; $(MAKE)"
DJ Delorie writes:
> I agree that && is better than ;
> but if the etc directory is missing yet needed, something else is
> broken. We should fix that problem first.
> Why is your build trying to install a directory it hasn't built? Mine
> seems to work, unless I "rm -rf etc". It seems the install targets
> don't depend on the build targets (which is probably a reasonable
I've been playing around trying to get things to build.
Since gcc is in another tree and yet requires installed binutils (*1),
I let the make run long enough to build binutils,gas,ld, and
then did a "make install". That's how this happened.
[Actually that's not entirely true. I'm summarizing, but
I'm guessing the effect is the same.]
(*1) and then newlib, in the same tree as binutils, requires gcc. :-(
I haven't tried doing the symlink to gcc thing yet
after the configure rewrite.
Has anyone gotten a "one-tree" tree to build yet under the
new configure regime?