"cd dir && $(MAKE)", not "cd dir; $(MAKE)"

[Doug Evans]

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
 > assumption).

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?