towards a cleaner chapter 5 and glibc

Matthias Benkmann matthias at winterdrache.de
Wed Jan 1 05:06:13 PST 2003


On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:20:25 -0500 (EST) Bill Maltby - LFS Related
<lfsbill at wlmcs.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> 
> >On December 31, 2002 01:58 pm, Christophe Devine wrote:
> >> Talking about gcc: why don't we install Chapter 5's gcc first,
> >> and then use it to compile bash, binutils, etc. with something like :
> >>
> >> CC=$LFS/static/bin/gcc ./configure --prefix=$LFS/static && ...
> >>
> >> This way the $LFS/static tree would be a little bit cleaner.
> >
> >That would serously mess up our SBUs as bash isn't the first package
> >installed anymore and we'd be making up SGUs instead. All that work for
> >nothing...{;o)
> >
> >Now seriously, I don't think this is a bad idea at all. Other people?
> 
> It makes sense. As far as the SBU issue - look at the bright side: all
> the numbers get smaller. What was a 2.3 might become a .17  :)

And they'll get more consistent because everyone uses the same compiler
for compiling static bash.

MSB

-- 
Join the Army, meet interesting people, kill them.

-- 
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