document how to build SBCL without installing the bootstrap binary (using eg. run-sbcl.sh)

[Nikodemus Siivola]

No, this isn't obvious.

[Andrew Fleckenstein (andrew-fleckenstein)]

By this do you mean downloading both the binary and the source, unpacking both, cd'ing into the source directory and running
`sh make.sh "/path/to/binary/run-sbcl.sh"`?

[Attila Lendvai (attila-lendvai)]

this is what i use:

./make.sh --xc-host='/path/to/binary/sbcl-1.1.16-x86-64-linux/run-sbcl.sh --no-userinit --no-sysinit'

these days the --xc-host might be optional, i'm not sure about that.

[Andrew Fleckenstein (andrew-fleckenstein)]

What file should I put the instructions in? INSTALL?

[Douglas Katzman (dougk)]

Since we tell users how to download a binary of SBCL, and how to build using _any_ lisp, there is nothing gained by telling them how to use run-sbcl.sh in a directory that was just built into.
Unless I"m misunderstanding what this bug is asking. "let's try rebuilding by using run-sbcl.sh in this directory" -> "where did all my artifacts go?" -> "oh, they got clobbered in the early steps of make.sh"

As to "not installing the bootstrap binary", I literally don't know what it means. The assumption with binary software distributions is that you install how it expects to be installed, or else you're on your own. You don't document how to subvert it. And while I am familiar with the concept of unpacking a binary (SBCL or other) into a non-canonical location (say /tmp) and bypassing its scripts, if users think they need to do that, they probably have a good reason why, and probably know how. There's no reason to explain it as a thing they should ever do. Hence won't-fix.