kazunobu.kuriyama at nifty.com
Wed Sep 20 11:56:09 PDT 2000
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> > > Couldn't you include nano in LFS? I personally gets the shivers as soon
> > > as
> > I
> > > see a VI clone.
> No, I chose for vim and I keep it there. I'm not adding 3 different text
> editors, 2 different compilers, 3 different this, etc. That's not what the
> book is about. I just give a blueprint and you don't have to follow it.
> Nothing is stopping you to pretend you read 'nano' when I write vim. if I now
> replace vim with nano people will ask me to replace nano with emacs or pico
> or knotepad or ms notepad. I'm not willing to start doing those things. Sorry.
> Gerard Beekmans
> -*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Even if so, I would be happy if our guru takes into consideration adding the
following note, or something
like that, to a corner of his new book, presumably recommending use of gcc-2.95.2
I don't need two different compilers on my LFS2.4, too.
"If your PC uses i810 and you need X401, it would be better to choose
the beginning because gcc-2.95.2 is able to compile X401 all but an X server
driver module for i810.
(This failure does not quit the compilation, so you are likely to overlook it
until the compilation has finished.)
This is due to a bug which prevents the compiler from parsing the kernel header
file agpgart.h, and thus
the driver module fails to be compiled."
In case the latest gcc is free from this bug, please forget this comment.
More information about the lfs-dev