Minor (unneeded?) omission in LFS 2002-0914?
Bill Maltby LFS Related
lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Sat Sep 14 20:46:44 PDT 2002
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Archaic wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 05:44:12PM -0400, Bill Maltby LFS Related wrote:
> > Well folks, after all this time, I finally decided maybe it was worth a
> > mention. I didn't find anyplace that told the poor noob user that exec and
> > write permission is need in the untar area (like /usr/src). Is it needed?
> > The system will tell them if they don't have it.
> says to chown -R lfs $LFS/static
> should be mkdir -p $LFS/static/usr/src
> says to cd $LFS/usr/src (which doesn't exist yet, BTW. If it said
> I'm not a fan of hand holding, but the intended area for compilation (if
> strictly following the book) was always the $LFS/usr/src and now we have
> typos dealing with the change to /static that don't properly refer to
> this. Once fixed, no one needs permission on /usr/src, just $LFS/static
Pretty much agree. Put, IIRC, $LFS/static/usr/src is only an *example*
suggested in the book. As mentioned in many previous threads, they can
work in other areas. So, it seems to me that a *mention* should be made
that they need to assure permissions "for whatever work directory will
receive the untarred sources", or similar.
> Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.
*Sigh* I know - being wrong is! ;)
> - General George Stark.
billm at wlmcs.com
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev