a few short questions about the development cross-lfs book

Ken Moffat ken at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Nov 1 09:42:14 PST 2005


On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>
> i did a quick toolchain build with crosstool and, AFAICT, there is no
> libiberty.h header file that was copied over.  perhaps this step is no
> longer necessary?
>
> rday
>

  Possibly. Looking at my logs, for LFS-6.1 both which and gdb tested 
for libiberty.h, but in a more recent build gdb used its own included 
libiberty (this is all on x86_64-64 and I'm uncertain why the earlier 
build was different).

  'which' tests libiberty.a to see if xmalloc is present before looking 
to see if it can use libiberty.h, so no doubt it will have a fallback 
plan. Both binutils and gcc use their own included libiberty.

  Certainly, if it is really redundant, that will affect LFS as much as 
CLFS.  Actually, some of the discussion is in 
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=565

  - sounds as if  "three known packages" needed it.  I've no idea what 
those packages were, or whether they still need it.  I suspect that I'd 
be perfectly happy to see it go, in the spirit of "any package that 
needs it should ship its own".  IMHO, this is a matter for LFS.  Unless 
anybody knows what the packages are, or were, merely asserting that they 
are broken isn't going to be a great help for anybody who wants to build 
them.

Ken
-- 
  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce


More information about the cross-lfs mailing list