Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3B3A6B60.5060503@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:25:20 -0400 From: "Charles S. Wilson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Charles S. Wilson" CC: John Wiersba , "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" Subject: Re: "shouted down", "shot down", apologies References: <03F4742D8225D21191EF00805FE62B9908E23EDB AT aa-msg-01 DOT medstat DOT com> <3B3A6A36 DOT 9020809 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh yeah -- one other thing. Most maintainers use separate build and src trees. I don't -- I build "my" packages right in the source directory. However, you *MUST* use separate build and src trees for gcc, binutils, and cygwin -- or it won't work. The "directions" below for readline assume the build-in-source-tree model. I wonder if the following is a useful thing to have in the documentation: at set of build instructions (and nothin' but build instructions) for each package. Say, a web page with a bunch of links to 10 line txt files (bash scripts?) that each build a given package. I'm willing to provide that for "my" packages, if somebody else will handle the logistics -- and folks think it is a good idea. (I shudder to consider the binutils, gcc, and cygwin scripts -- that python monster someone posted earlier today scared even me...) --Chuck Charles S. Wilson wrote: > John Wiersba wrote: > >> So, is the "download source" option for setup.exe useful for >> anything? Can >> you rebuild (all of) cygwin from it? What I mean is: there are these >> 80+ >> packages available with setup.exe. If I download the source for all of >> them, install the source somewhere, run some build process against it, >> will >> I end up with a working cygwin which is functionally equivalent to the >> binary packages I downloaded using setup.exe? >> >> -- John Wiersba > > > Yes, you can build the tools from the source packages provided as part > of the downloads. However, there is no 'make world' procedure that > builds EVERYTHING all in one step. You have to go into each package's > source directory, and do the typical './configure ; make ; make install' > procedure. However, to get EXACTLY the same binaries, you'll need to > use the same configuration options that the maintainer used -- > > For instance (readline): > CFLAGS="-I/usr/include/ncurses" \ > ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-curses > make > make shared > make examples > make test > make install prefix=/tmp/usr > make install-shared prefix=/tmp/usr > make install-examples prefix=/tmp/usr > strip /tmp/usr/bin/cygreadline5.dll > strip /tmp/usr/bin/cyghistory5.dll > (cd /tmp ; tar tvjf readline-X.Y-Z.tar.bz2 usr/) > > and now you have a tarball that *should* be the same as the 'official' > one. In most cases, the maintainers document their build procedures or > special config options in /usr/doc/Cygwin/.README > > The exception to this is possibly binutils, gcc, cygwin, mingw. These > packages are kindof intermingled and cgf uses special buildscripts to > generate the separate binary tarballs. I think. > > --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/