Pure LFS - latest work in progress
gschafer at zip.com.au
Mon Feb 3 23:50:09 PST 2003
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:19:28PM +0100, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:01:21 +1100 Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip.com.au>
> >Thirdly, we switch off the "hash" function of the bash shell like so:-
> > set +h
> Why should this be necessary? It would only affect the commands we run on
> the interactive shell we use to build LFS, i.e. commands like make, cp,
> mkdir. It does not affect the non-interactive shell that runs configure.
Ahh, that is good to know. I was having grief, but it was just the
interactive commands now that I think about it. Anyway, I think I'll leave
it there for now coz it makes sense to use the new tools (patch, sed, make,
cp, whatever) as soon as they become available.
> > mkdir ../binutils-build &&
> > cd ../binutils-build &&
> > CFLAGS="-O2 -pipe" ../binutils-2*/configure --prefix=/stage1 \
> > --disable-nls &&
> > make -e LDFLAGS="-s" LIB_PATH=/stage1/lib &&
> > make install
> >The only curious command here is the use of "make -e". We need to do this
> >>so that the LIB_PATH=/stage1/lib gets passed down to the sub-make
> >process >during the build of ld. Some people may consider this "impure"
> It IS impure. A toolchain built with the use of make -e simply is not a
> good toolchain. The make -e was removed from the LFS build instructions
> back in 2001 after I demonstrated that is messes up gcc's build process
> BAAAADLY. If a package built with make -e works, this is just luck. The -e
> actually stands for "evil". DO NOT REINTRODUCE IT INTO THE BOOK!
Ahh, yes, I remember that way back when. Thats why I slotted in the
alternatives. At least I caught your attention! :-)
Thanks MSB for your input.
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