gcc patch vs install-no-fixedincludes

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Mon Feb 10 15:56:14 PST 2003


> Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> > > also, for some screwed up reason, gcc refuses to install the c++
> > > headers without the patch.
> >
> > Yep, spotted that a while ago too, pretty annoying but you can just cd
> > into the libstc++-v3 dir and run make install...
>
> but what about the newbie that doesn't know to do this? are they out in
> the cold when they start getting "strange" errors when trying to compile
> groff whatever happens to be the first c++ prog on the chopping block?

>From what I can tell I think this only becomes an issue if you use the
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs option ( but thats just a guess, I
always use this option ).
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong ;-)

> but still, the install-no-fixedincludes target
> appears to be somewhat braindead

hehehe, along with the whole fixinclude mess ;-)

> , and should (IMHO) be ditched for the
> patch. anybody had any problems with the patch that went away with use of
> install-no-fixedincludes target? anybody had problems with
> install-no-fixedincludes that disappears with use of the patch? point
> proven :-)

:-)

> aye. tis not a show stopper for those of us that know our way around a
> bit, but again, what about the not-so-enlightened. one doesn't have to be
> a newbie to be confused/thrown-off by this crap.

Noobynoobs probably wont come across this issue ( if this is only occurs
using the version specific runtime libs conf option 0 and they follow the
book correctly ;-)

But its a gotcha that I suppose should be mentioned somewhere...

Anyhoo, back to the grind :-)
Regards
Ryan

-- 
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