Pure LFS - good to go

Jeroen Coumans jeroencoumans at gmx.net
Sat Feb 22 06:33:02 PST 2003

Seth W.Klein wrote:
> "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.

(I didn't wrote the above, it was Matthew. Your quotes are a bit 
misleading :)

> 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.)

Yes, make check is standard in the buildscripts, and I hope Greg or Ryan 
will insert it in the hint too so we allready have the test cases ready 
(which check's fail and why) when the hint will be incoroporated in the 

> cheers,
> Seth W. Klein

Jeroen Coumans

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