Testing branch proposal

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jul 5 12:13:54 PDT 2004


Zack Winkles wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 05:44:15 -0600, Archaic <archaic at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 01:14:45AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>>>Also, readline has been added. This was supposed to be addressed
>>>before unstable went to testing (seemed to have much controversy
>>>last time the subject came up).
>>
>>It is non-essential to a properly running LFS, and it is placed near the
>>beginning of BLFS. Add to that the fact that a simple link placed in
>>either the bash page or the e2fsprogs page pointing to BLFS will cater
>>to all differing desires.
> 
> 
> The build in BLFS is horribly flawed.  First, both the readline and
> history libraries
> use ncurses symbols, but neither of them link to the ncurses library
> by default, meaning
> that programs that test for their presence will report that they are
> in fact NOT present.
> Inetutils is a case in point.  Also, the GNU fixes patch is not
> applied.  Until those two
> issues are resolved, I will not let readline be dropped from LFS.

You make it seem like it is your decision and yours alone. Is
this the way it is?

If so, why even discuss? I just remember there were as many against
it being in LFS as there were for it. I really don't have a
preference. It does seem to go away from the required packages only
philosophy.

As far as "horribly flawed", I couldn't find anything in Bugzilla
about readline having problems. If the installation was so poor
and broken, how come nobody ever mentioned it?

-- 
Randy



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list