Major CVS LFS bug - binutils-18.104.22.168
jbrown at kmts.ca
Mon Jan 27 19:14:01 PST 2003
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:09:02 -0600, Jack Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:56:36 -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> Sure a hack can be put into place as always.
>> But more often we've seen that the HJ Lu releases fix bugs a lot
>> quicker. It's even the preferred binutils release by the kernel
>> developers. That ought to mean something too.
> Was there another problem with binutils other than this one, that came
> up? I must have missed something.
> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we still need to use this hack
> in chapter 5 regardless wether we use GNU's version or not? what the big
> problem with just doing the same thing in chapter 6? all were doing is
> makeing sure the config behaves, were not modifying C code or anything?
> Jack Brown
hmm looking over the CVS Book I don''t see the hack in gcc's chapter 5
instructions, but from what I recall of that discussion it should still
be there. (usnfortunatly searching the mailing list still doesn't work).
After all we have no idea which version of binutils will be present on
the host system and the static gcc is the one used to build the first
glibc (the ne used fr building all of LFS but the 2nd glibc and the
Shouldn't that be added back in regardless what else we do?
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