On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:25:19AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > As I read it, Comment #2 was fixing the error at hand, and Comment #3 was > going > for a more long-term solution as first suggested by Gerard where we define > where > the sources kept.
Yes, I misread it. However, this is a standard convention used for all times. We pulled out the generic info on how to unpack a tarball long ago due to the handholding nature of it. Wouldn't this follow the same logic? Also, I recently pulled out a paragraph about moving the sources at the end of chapter 6 because it was deemed to be an excessive assumption on the part of the book to list where packages *should* go. In all of the hub-bub, I never heard anyone complain that they keep their patches and their packages in 2 different locations, nor does the book endorse doing so. In fact, it even *recommends* using this dir for a working dir. A newbie will likely follow the book explicitly, wheras someone more seasoned and particular about doing things their own way should know enough to adjust the commands. The following paragraph might be handholding, it does clear up problems with the ../ convention: From http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/chapter03/chapter03.html Downloaded packages and patches will need to be stored somewhere that is conveniently available throughout the entire build. A working directory is also required to unpack the sources and build them. $LFS/sources can be used both as the place to store the tarballs and patches and as a working directory. By using this directory, the required elements will be located on the LFS partition and will be available during all stages of the building process. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
