Pure LFS - good to go

Seth W.Klein sk at sethwklein.net
Fri Feb 21 11:37:07 PST 2003


"Matthew Burgess" <ca9mbu at eos.sunderland.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Jeroen Coumans" <jeroencoumans at gmx.net> wrote in message
> 
> Assumptions & implications...easily avoidable if Alan would have come
> straight out and said something like "Until LFS fixes their toolchain
> (it's broken because of X)..." then we'd all be the wiser.

Unless i'm far wrong, Alan doesn't know why the tool chains in LFS
builds tend to be broken. And that lack of knowledge is what he was
complaining about. With RedHat he can grab the version of RedHat
that the bug reporter is using and reproduce the bug. Trying to do
the same with LFS is far less likely to work. Typos alone guarentee
this.

(The solution to typos is machine checking which is why i think
the current discussions of using ``make check'' are good even though
i didn't used to favor using it, and i'd be delighted to see
`make check'' become a standard part of the standard Pure LFS hint
and skipping it a highly deprecated (because of typos) shortcut.)

cheers,
Seth W. Klein
-- 
sk at sethwklein.net                         http://www.sethwklein.net/
Maintainer, LFS FAQ             http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
-- 
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