Help wanted, setconsole problem

[ralda at gmx.de]

Hi Laurent !

>  The Aboriginal Linux toolchains include a full-featured GNU make
> binary that works and respects the paths. Of course, that does not
> mean Busybox make should not be fixed, but if you need a working
> make as a bootstrap, you can use it.
> 
>  I've personally never felt the need to use Busybox make, for two
> reasons :
>  - make is a development tool and has its place on development
> machines more than embedded boxes ;
>  - It happens that GNU make (as well as GNU tar, surprisingly) has
> been cleanly written and cleanly packaged, compiles easily with the
> uClibc as well as the glibc, and produces a decently sized binary
> instead of the usual GNU behemoths. (I suspect a direct intervention
> of the Lord into the FSF developer pool.) So whenever I need to build
> a make, GNU make is actually quite usable.

Sorry, if I have some trouble to fully understand your message. May be
translation problems or I missed some information it is based on ...

The make 'm using is:

make --version
GNU Make 3.82

So what are the differences between Rob's, mine and the one you are
mentioning? I thought, the Busybox "Makefile" called with "make" is in
responsible of the tools executed and fail to use the system path in a
correct manner. The make I'm using works pretty on all those Gentoo
packages based on it. None of those builds fail. So it looks to me
there is a wrong path assumption anywhere in the Busybox build process.

May be the term "Busybox make" let you to the assumption I'm using a
make build into Busybox (I don't know about such one). My intention was
to say (with few words), I'm using the usual make with Busybox provided
Makefile.

So what did I get wrong?

--
Harald