Bruce Dubbs wrote: > If that were the policy at one time, then it should be abandoned. We now > require sed 3.02 as a part of the host requirements. According to the change > log, the in-place mechanism has been in sed since 2001-12-17. Looking at the > sed releases, that is about the time that sed-4.0 was released.
Ah, well, then there ya go. > It would be much easier to change the host requirements to sed-4.0.6 > (18-Mar-2003) or later rather than bend over backward to accommodate a host > that > has a package that predates the 2.6 kernel. I chose 4.0.6 as a benchmark > because that is the earliest sed-4.0 in the gnu repository. > >> (A complete aside is that we could also always do a very early build of >> sed before anything else, and bash and make for that matter, like DIY >> does so that the entire build process is more robust, is buildable on >> older systems and we can use more 'modern' commands throughout the build.) > > We already require bash-2.05a and make-3.79.1 or later. Are there issues > with > these? There's no real issue, more just an opinion. I personally don't care so much that we have 'requirements' that aren't really requirements. In other words, it is possible to build LFS (with a few slight modifications) on hosts with older software than we specify, so I don't really see a need to require more modern versions especially if it's just so we can use more convenient syntax. A 2.6 kernel so that glibc can build itself and its nptl libs in a sane way is a technical requirement. Sed-4.0.6 so that we can use '-i' is not. As I said, if you want to use -i, great. The build ends up being more robust and you have less specific requirements for the host if you build sed twice in chapter 5 (once before you do binutils) and you get the bonus of being able to use -i. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
