Pending package updates, any gotchas?
ca9mbu at hermes.sunderland.ac.uk
Tue Jul 29 10:28:19 PDT 2003
On 29 Jul 2003 10:57:37 -0600
Gerard Beekmans <gerard at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> The following packages are scheduled to be upgraded in Bugzilla:
> procps-3.1.11 (2.0.13?)
expect's now up to 5.38.3 :)
> A few questions/notes:
> procps: are we all ok with using the 3.x ones, or has anybody found
> the other procps version is better?
Does anyone have any ideas as to what the exact differences are about
this package other than it's maintained by different people who insist
on throwing tantrums as soon as the idea of amalgamating efforts is
> flex: there were problems a while ago with newer flex versions. Do
> these problems still exist or are patches available that fix it all?
See the FAQ :) Either stick with flex-2.5.4a or go for 2.5.27, the most
recent version causes compilation of modutils and other BLFS packages to
fail and I've been tracking the patches at sourceforge - so far none
seem to fix those particular issues.
> GCC: do you guys believe it's good enough, or had we better wait for
> the next scheduled version (however long that might be with the SCO
> thing going on).
3.3.1 is due out any time soon. This causes compilation of glibc-2.3.2
to break though I think (fixincludes stuff I believe). Zack had updated
instructions for that which "worked for me" TM. I could dig the
instructions out of my scripts if they've been lost altogether.
> The others: any gotchas, patches or installation instruction changes
> that need to be made? If somebody could give me a convenient list with
> things to do for each upgrade that would be very helpful, as it would
> save me quite a bit of time.
Binutils - see the FAQ :) Basically needs a `make configure-host` after
the ./configure step and before make to configure the subdirectories
thus enabling any CFLAGS to be passed correctly.
You may want to consider dropping libtool back to 1.4.2 - there's been
several reports on the blfs-support lists about version 1.5 breaking .so
library creation in the recompiled shadow packages and some gnome
packages as well.
As of gettext-0.12 the package was split into two different parts - a
runtime bit and a developer bit. At first I thought that we could just
use the runtime bit but it looks as though something in BLFS needs parts
of the developer section of the package. What does this mean? Leave
the instructions as is and the entire package is installed as
Other than that *I* have not encountered problems with other upgraded
packages nor seen any frequently occuring issues related to them on the
lists that I can recall.
Hope this helps,
More information about the lfs-dev