Ch6 gcc: Don't run fixincludes [Fwd from blfs-support: Re: openssl-0.9.7 and openssh-3.5p1]

Tushar Teredesai tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 22 17:16:40 PST 2003


Greg Schafer wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 05:52:23PM -0600, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>  
>
>>I think it would be a good idea to use "*make install-no-fixedincludes" 
>>instead of "make install" during Chapter 6 gcc installation.*
>>    
>>
>
>I agree, but not for the example you quoted.
>
>LFS Ch 6 gcc is installed before any third party libs like openssl therefore
>the fixincludes process doesn't get the chance to "fix" the openssl headers.
>It would only become an issue if gcc gets reinstalled at a later date (when
>all the 3rd party libs are already installed).
>
Yep, but most use the same commands to upgrade. Maybe just a note to the 
effect giving them an option. BTW, I have been using no-fixincludes 
since it was first discussed on this list without any problems.

>Sidenote Rant:
>It annoys me that on a brand new LFS using all the latest packages,
>fixincludes tries to "fix" what it thinks are broken headers. Why are they
>broken? Should someone knowledgable look at the affected headers and see if
>the fixes are correct then submit bugs upstream? If the headers are not
>broken then should bugs be submitted to the fixincludes maintainer? Any
>volunteers?
>  
>
Is it possible to run fixincludes after installation of gcc and install 
the fixed headers in a seperate directory?

I remember doing a diff sometime back, didn't turn up anything significant.

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
   http://www.geocities.com/tushar/


-- 
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