--- Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm now almost certain this is a bash problem > > > [...] > > > > So, it looks as if we need to apply the bash > patches in chapter 6 > > (temporary system). Unfortunately, proving that > means starting over > > Testing has been somewhat delayed by my adventures > with e2fprogs, > but a build is running at the moment. It's still > building 64-bit > glibc, but the test results from 32-bit glibc are > not encouraging: > an extra failure (one of the nptl tests, no big > deal), and then > c++-types-check.out failed (on the previous build, > that only failed > in 64-bit). So, applying the patch to bash in the > temporary system > will NOT reliably fix this failure. > > I still think it's probably bash-related, but I > have no way of > proving that, nor of fixing it. Maybe we should add > a comment that > c++-types-check often fails for unknown reasons ? I > don't know > which is worse - not mentioning a failure which > people are fairly > likely to see, or saying we haven't a clue.
Ken, I've done some more tests, and I can confirm that it's a bash problem. But I can't point exactly what. However, as I looked in bash's source code, I saw that all the parsing is related to bison. However, bash can be installed without bison, as it's done in chapter 6. But I suspect it could be the problem, and that bison should be installed before bash in 6.6. Unfortunately, I have no machine to test it from the beginning, so it's only hypothesis. What do you think about this? G. Moko __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Clfs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cross-lfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfs-dev
