Pure LFS - latest work in progress

Matthias Benkmann matthias at winterdrache.de
Tue Feb 4 03:49:58 PST 2003


On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:50:09 +1100 Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip.com.au>
wrote:

> 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.

But doesn't this introduce unnecessary incompatibility? I haven't actually
checked the LFS commands but I think it is preferable to have them work
with any sh, not just bash.

MSB

-- 
An army of sheep led by a lion
is stronger than an army of lions
led by a sheep.

-- 
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