Make check again
gschafer at zip.com.au
Thu Feb 20 17:53:57 PST 2003
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:19:44AM -0700, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On February 16, 2003 05:02 pm, Arjan Oosting wrote:
> > is run, a static version of ld is built with-nls enabled. Then libc.a is
> > included which defines symbols already supplied by the different object
> > files of ld. These nls symbols conflict, due to different size etc.
> > (Which possible is caused by different version of intl sources in glibc
> > and binutils).
> Which is the main reason why you see --disable-nls in a bunch of packages in
> chapter 5. Without --disable-nls, you would be getting similar errors
> regarding nls, libc.a, symbol conflicts and such.
Ahh, I'm an idiot. I never knew that :-)
I always thought it was to save space in the Ch 5 builds. i.e. just build
enough of Ch 5 to bootstrap Ch 6.
But seeing as that's not the case, we may as well just let the NLS stuff
build and be done with it (except for the pass 1 static builds of binutils
and gcc). Folk can still use "--disable-nls" if they don't want NLS or want
to save space.
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