Updated buildscripts (v2.2.8)

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Mon Apr 21 19:56:43 PDT 2003

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:

> Crikeys, I gotta get myself a net connection at home :-/
> Seems bucketloads of stuff has been done with the coreutils stuff over the
> easter break.
> I'm a little intrigued as I havent had to go through anwhere near as much
> trauma as you guys with the changing of permissions inside the tests
> directory, nor have I had any issues with su... and thats in ch5 and ch6.

Well, just discovered that I may have have some trauma because I was
testing at command line by sourcing parts of the script (and also some
CnP of commands from the script).

Although set +h has no nasty effect if we run the script
start-to-finish, I found out the hard way that when I worked at the CLI,
the set +h had gone away from the scripts sometime in the past and I had
not noticed.

The reason this got me was I broke the 2.2.8 stuff into two parts. Part
one was sourced from the command line and stopped after gawk (just be
fore coreutils). I then blithely started running small parts of the
coreutils stuff from the CLI.

Eventually I began to wonder why when I removed /stage1/bin/su and rm,
it would carp at me about those things not being found when I would just
enter su or rm (messages like permissions, not found ... who knows. I
got discombobulated after a couple of days of this).

Anyway, I've added set +h into my local copy so if I do this again, I
won't get shafted by this.

The question now is how much of what I've done is valid, how much is
waste and how much of everybody's time has been wasted by my screw-up?

And, should I start afresh and forget all that I *thought* I had
accomplished? ARRRGGGGHHHH!

I think I'll sleep on it.

> With that in mind I cant comment really on which way to go here, because me
> testing the proposed changes by bill and erik won't prove anything...

Apparently, me testing anything I've proposed won't prove anything

Well, at least I didn't wipe out my partition (... yet?).

> Thoughts on how to resolve this one? Who has the lowest specced host system
> (in terms of package version numbers)?

Easiest solution is to tell me to take a vacation.

> Regards
> Ryan

Bill Maltby
lfsbill 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 mailing list