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

[Rob Landley]

> > the point is simply that there's value in maintaining a certain
> > amount of stability in the build tool requirements, and so far i
> > think busybox has done a good job at striking that balance.  i'm
> > sure ours isn't the only project that appreciates that.
>
> I agree, and I'm glad busybox at least attempts to make that balance.
>
> To maintain old machines, it's worth having stand-alone computers
> running old versions of software available.  I hear some people
> have good success using VMWare/UML/Bochs etc. for this purpose,
> so they don't even need dedicated hardware -- just tons of disk
> space.

I don't actually have a machine with Red Hat 9 installed, I have an image 
(which I uploaded to http://busybox.net/downloads/qemu along with a README) 
that I run under QEMU.  In there I wget a snapshot off the website, make 
defconfig, switch off e2fsprogs (which still doesn't build under RH9), build 
and test.

There will be a point at which we drop RH9, but it's too close to the 1.2.0 
release to do so for that.  I expect to go into feature freeze in a week or 
so, do 2-3 weeks of bugfixes only, and then have 1.2 out by mid-June.

Now if we want to say that 1.3.0 will require Make 3.80, I could be talked 
into it.  (Although I'm still somewhat uncomfortable relying on a narrow 
range of specific gnu tools.  If there's a tinymake out there, somebody 
please tell me about it...)

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.