--- Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, Joe is also right that for CLFS you can't > depend on the host. > Might be acceptable for native builds, though (after > reverting -i from > sed). > > Greg just brought up an interesting point to me, > though. Why hasn't > this affected LFS/DIY? I just checked my build log > from a couple weeks > ago, and my temp bash has > > checking whether /dev/fd is available... absent > > Except that was glibc-2.3.6. Greg's doing native > glibc-2.4 for DIY > with bash-3.1, and I'm pretty sure he builds the > temp stage > unprivelaged. Something goofy going on.
Another point I remind now. In chapter 10, on the final system, I built bash as unprivileged user too, and it worked well with process substitution. I've kept the log, so I'll look at it this evening to see if there is any difference between first install in /tools and second in final system (knowing that my host system is a LFS 5.1 LiveCD, so very close to what I built, but in 32 bits). __________________________________________________ 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
