[PATCH] fix erroneous "builddir" reference in libbb/Makefile

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 14 May 2006, Rich Felker wrote:

> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 04:26:28PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2006, Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 02:23:43PM -0500, Jason Schoon wrote:
> > > > I completely agree with that.  If you want to build the latest
> > > > version of a package, but can't be bothered to upgrade your build
> > > > tools to something from 4 years ago, tough.  According to
> > > > freshmeat, make 3.79.1 was released 8 years ago, August of 1998.
> > > > Time to let it go.
> >
> > > Would you like to find me a "modern" make with same or smaller size
> > > on disk? The problem with requiring recent versions of GNU packages
> > > is that the ones newer than 8-15 years old become exponentially
> > > bloated with each release... :(
> >
> > perhaps i'm missing something -- why is the size of "make" an issue?
>
> The size of a single program is not the issue. The overall size of
> all installed programs is. You ask me why I can't use a version of
> make that's 200% larger. Someone else asks me why I can't upgrade
> another program. By the time it's finished the total OS size has
> tripled... :(
>
> Yes it would be better to use a more modern version of make, but it
> would also be nice to debloat it. In the absence of improvements to
> reduce size and improve performance, I have a really strong disgust
> for forced upgrades.

but what does the size of "make" have to do with the goals of busybox?
i still don't see your point in discussing the size of the *build*
tools.

rday