Installing GCC-3.2 problem.

Kelledin kelledin at
Mon Sep 9 17:20:50 PDT 2002

On Monday 09 September 2002 05:35 pm, you wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:57:46PM -0500, Kelledin wrote:
> > The best thing to do would be to patch gcc so that it
> > doesn't run fixincludes.  This "fixincludes" thing is
> > getting to be a real hassle, and the more I think about it,
> > the more I think it was a bad idea from the start.
> Agreed. The way we use GCC in Chapter 5 kinda defeats the
> purpose of the fixincludes logic. And now it seems it is
> causing more problems than solving than them..  so lets piss
> it off.
> It makes more sense to leave it in for Ch 6 (even though at
> least one person on this list previously said it was fine to
> not use them in Ch 6 either).

I say leave it out for chapter 6 as well.  If someone compiles 
software "such-and-such" in chapter 6, then gcc does the 
fixincludes, then someone upgrades such-and-such later, anything 
that wants to build against such-and-such's headers could end up 
being farked.  Basically the fixincludes could cause things to 
be compiled using system headers that really aren't in sync with 
their accompanying system libraries.

Any problem where the fixincludes stuff might save our butts is 
probably better solved by fixing the problematic headers 
directly.  Besides which, I've never seen anything die from lack 
of the "fixes," and I've been riding without the "fixed" headers 
for ages.

"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does 
it still cost four figures to fix?"
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list