Are the gcc build files still needed after section 5.4?

m at m at
Mon Jun 5 00:26:54 PDT 2006

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Randy McMurchy wrote:

> m at wrote these words on 06/04/06 19:02 CST:
>> On the other hand the link created at the end of section 5.4
>> points /tools/bin/cc at the gcc in the working directory, not at
>> /tools/bin/gcc.
> Are you certain about that? :-)

Dead certain.  Look:

Cite from the book, section 5.4 in version 6.1.1
  Install the package:

make install

As a finishing touch, create a symlink. Many programs and scripts run cc 
instead of gcc, which is used to keep programs generic and therefore 
usable on all kinds of UNIX systems where the GNU C compiler is not always 
installed. Running cc leaves the system administrator free to decide which 
C compiler to install.

ln -vs gcc /tools/bin/cc
     ^^ ^
     || '-- we are still in the build dir
     ||     and this is the local copy
     |'--symbolic link

or, in case the formatting is lost:

ln -vs \
#  make a symbolic link and do it in verbosely.
gcc \
#  file being linked to
#  name of the link

so, as far as I can see, even having read and now re-read section 5.1, 
there is no indication that at this stage one is anywhere other than in 
the build directory.  I believe we have an inconsistency.

> Did you read the part about making sure you're right before writing
> about this very issue a few packages back (creating the $LFS/tools dir)?

Searched the headers of the last 4000 messages.  Unless I missed it this 
hasn't been raised yet.

> Please double check the man page for ln. :-)

Corse I checked! ;)

> And yes, completely remove the GCC source tree after you've installed
> it.

And then run cc :)

Regards, Max

More information about the lfs-support mailing list