possible variations for remote building?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:29:11AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >  before i get into detail, what are the acceptable variations for
> >building busybox in a directory separate from the source directory?
> >(i can see how it's *supposed* to work in the top-level Makefile but a
> >number of tests i've run seem to show that remote building is broken.)
> >
> >  a pointer to a URL covering this would work just fine, thanks.
>
> O= doesn't work as it would (currently) break make-3.80.

right, that's what i found.  so that's a known issue.  (i'm pretty
sure it would break make-3.81 as well.  or is there some new magic
feature in make-3.81 to handle out-of-source-tree builds?)

> Specifying multiple MAKECMDGOALS, i.e. both config and non-config ones
> doesn't work since we cannot skip-makefile anymore (would brake
> make-3.80), so we cannot guarantee that the (now ditched) second
> invocation of make sees all stuff it needs for this to work.
> Consider that we have to deal with:
> -) completely empty builddir
> -) only .config in builddir
> -) .....
> -) fully setup builddir
>
> Supporting all these variations while trying to be backward compatible
> to broken/non-feature complete binaries of make(1) is doable and there,
> but if you want to also throw in mixed target-goals for each of the
> variants above, it gets really cumbersone.
>
> mkdir /obj/ ; cd /obj
> make -f /src/busybox/Makefile defconfig
> make
>
> works for me. See INSTALL

yes, that's the only variation that works that i tested.  ok, so now i
know.  thanks.

rday