[gccsdk] Building wget on a 'fresh' autobuilder

Frank de Bruijn gcc-sub at aconet.nl
Thu Apr 1 14:36:42 PDT 2010


In article <9781520151.Jo at hobbes.bass-software.com>,
   John Tytgat <John.Tytgat at aaug.net> wrote:

> Could you update Wiki page plz ?

OK. I'll create an account and make the changes.

> Those extra requirements have no doubt been added later.  It is not
> very ideal as that list is becoming a requirement to build all (or
> nearly all) Autobuilder projects which is perhaps becoming a burden
> for the occational Autobuilder user.  It might very well you only need
> a very tiny subset of those tools for just building wget and its
> dependencies.

That's what I thought. I'm not going to change anything there until I'm
certain, though.

> > I'd like to make sure I haven't been wasting my time so far because
> > I took a wrong turn somewhere. So could someone with more experience
> > with these tools please confirm that trying to build wget on a
> > completely 'fresh' autobuilder actually does fail all over the
> > place? Thanks.

> I know that Peter has not so long ago gone through substantial trouble
> to have all (nearly all ?) Autobuilder projects built again so there
> might be some patch bit rot since then.  Although, perhaps it is worth
> checking where you are pulling the sources from ?

>From the default site set by the autobuilder's script, as far as I'm
aware. I didn't change anything there, because I didn't want to add any
more variables.

> If you want to help out getting some projects more up-to-date, that
> would be awesome and we're more than happy to give you svn commit
> rights. :-)

I'd be glad to help, but only if I feel confident enough about what I'm
doing. That's why I need to know I'm on the right track now. I have a
tendency to doubt myself if I feel that what I'm dealing with shouldn't
fail before I made any changes (although it usually turns out I *was*
right, so I really should stop with the doubts...). Building wget is
going so badly, that I need to be certain it's not because I unknowingly
did something to cause it. Hence my 'request'.

Regards,
Frank





More information about the gcc mailing list