Re: [MiNT] mintbin

[Guido Flohr <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 04:38:20PM +0300, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
> > > Consdering it will take nearly 5, maybe 6 hours to compile new libs. are
> > > they anywhere avalable in bin forms? 
> > 
> > 6 hours on a centurbo-2 falcon? Mintlibs compile 4 hours on my standard
> > one! (?)
> 
> Any libs since 0.49 (or was it 0.50) take 6-8 hours to compile on
> my TT and usually fail right after the basic libc, when it gets
> to the TZ library part, so I can never get any of the baserel or
> other bits done because of this.  

If you use the GNU binutils 2.9.1 you should have no problems to compile
and install in one go.  However, with the old binutils I have to implement
everything "eyes closed".  This version is error-prone, right.

> 
> Even worse, the new building method prevents anyone from resuming
> a failed make; one must delete the entire folder, unpack a fresh
> source, reconfigure, then recompile.  With the previous Makefile
> format, one could stop the process or resume one that generated
> errors.  Why was this changed?

Sorry, Martin, it was the other way round: With the old source tree,
modifying one single source file resulted in recompiling all libraries
(because there were no separate directories for object files and ready
compiled libs).  Now you can change a source file or header, dependencies
are automatically regenerated and only those files get recompiled that
need to be recompiled.

BTW, the build processes for all libs (and the tz directory) are
completely independent.  If your build fails in "tz" and you still want
the mbaserel lib, just do:

	cd libb
	make install

This is all described in the docs.  But on the other hand, "a couple of
months in the laboratory can often save a couple of hours in the library."
There are more of those try'n'error folks out there but most of them don't
complain as loud as you do.

So finally, why does it take longer to compile the MiNTLib?  Again, it's a
big advantage if you can read:  The MiNTLib is bigger and more complex
than ever.  If you don't like that, stay with PL46 and spend your time
patching the software you want to build instead.  But maybe you should
have a look at the output of average configure scripts with an old MiNTLib
and a recent one.  Ever noticed that these "checking for this_and_that..."
lines now mostly end with "yes"?

Ciao

Guido
-- 
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000/
mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de