Update to current packages or PLFS first?

Erik-Jan ej.lfs at xs4all.nl
Wed Apr 30 16:13:09 PDT 2003

Andrew Fyfe wrote:
> This sounds like the best option at least for glibc-2.3.2 and gcc-3.2.2.
> Didn't some people have problems compiling glibc-2.3.2 and gcc-3.2.2
> using the current lfs build system?

I agree, updating the 'old' LFS to these new versions while knowing that
the next step will be PLFS is a bit of a waste of time, IMHO.

> Also it would be nice to see the make check/tests included in the book
> for all packages. This can save a lot of time and hassel if anything
> should go wrong, rather than waiting until you boot into your new system
> to find something doesn't work.

I agree. Of course, 'make check' only will tell you if 'make check' is
OK, it doesn't guarantee a 100% correct package. But if 'make check'
fails, it gives you a lot more information on what went wrong, so errors
in the build/environment/package can be found much sooner. It can save a
lot of time (and frustration ;-))

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