[lfs-dev] lfs-book r10001 e2fsprogs build error
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Sep 30 10:47:41 PDT 2012
DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 09/30/2012 12:04 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> What does '/usr/share/doc/flex-2.5.37' have to do with 'ln -sv libfl.a
>> /usr/lib/libl.a'? I don't see the connection.
> Sorry, it is only related in that it's the same package. I'm not sure
> what the policy is for being able to reinstall a package without making
> changes to the instructions.
I don't know that we have a policy on that. It wouldn't be unreasonable
to ensure a re-install would work.
> I don't know if using -f for all ln
> commands would be appropriate throughout chapter 6 or not. This is a
> very minor issue and could easily be ignored as it would be best
> practice not to use -f when not needed, or it could be 'fixed' in that
> it is appropriate for a reinstall of flex. Could just as easily argue
> that the command should be removed in a reinstall/upgrade. I just ran
> into a minor issue that also tripped up jhalfs and figured I'd report it.
Looking at what we have now, I think most places have ln -svf. IN some
cases -svfn. Reviewing for places where -f is not used:
ln -sv $LFS/tools /
tcl - one place
bash - one place
binutils - one place
gcc-pass1 - one place
gcc-pass2 - onen place
Creating directories - Four places
Creating Creating Essential Files and Symlinks - Five places
gcc - Two places
groff - Two places
bzip2 - three places
kmod - two places
vim - two places
flex - one place
adjusting toolchain - one place
grub - one place
The only place I think it makes any difference would be in Chapter 6 in
the six actual packages but even there, the gcc and vim cases are
covered in BLFS for reinstallation.
I note that in a couple of cases we use ln -vs instead of ln -sv. I
think we need to be more consistent there. (Chapter 5 bash and
gcc-pass*). I will fix that for sure.
More information about the lfs-dev