plans and wishes

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Wed Jan 14 19:58:41 PST 2004


On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 02:36:54PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 02:30:49PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > m4/bison/flex are simply not needed. Tarballs generally include the files
> > generated by these tools. This is a fact. As you well know, only when using
> > HJL binutils are they required. LFS is currently not using HJL binutils so
> > there is no point in using them. If they made a difference to the LFS build
> > then we'd need them, but the facts of the matter are they currently make no
> > difference. We can easily add them if they're needed in future.
> 
> I should have added here that the above is based on current LFS and current
> packages. It could well change in future. Because not every single package
> in the world includes the files generated by these tools (tho' they probably
> should :-)  Of course there are _plenty_ of BLFS pkgs that need them.

Could sombody please pass me a shovel?  :-)

Of course, I meant that those tools are not required in current *Ch 5*. The
generated files are included in the gcc and binutils tarballs.

At least bison is needed by kbd and modutils and flex. So they'd be ok in the
alphabetized scenario. However, I'll concede that Ryan may be right in that
m4/bison/flex could be useful in Ch 5 in the alphabetized Ch 6 scenario.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list