On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 20:47 +0000, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
> > There is no advantage of hard-coding the UID/GID. (Just as there is no
> > advantage to hard-coding /tools into the LFS book but allowing users
> > to change $LFS but that is another topic).
>
> Well, there's one really good reason to mandate $LFS being "/tools" -
> that's the gcc-4.0.2-specs-1.patch which hardcodes /tools in there. If
> we were to relax that /tools assumption, we'd have to explain what folks
> would have to do in order to make that patch Do The Right Thing.
Heh, or replace it with a sed as was originally done.
> A
> similar bunch of explanatory text would be required for each of the
> toolchain adjustment sections, as they too assume /tools
Yup, would need a ${TOOLS} env var and some fun seds...
We could make /tools arbitrary, its not much work, but I'd expect a huge
rise in support questions...
On the other hand, the toolchain patches currently hide a lot of the
stuff we are actually doing ch5 modifying the toolchain to suit our own
ends... using seds/edits would force folks to think about it some...
[R]
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
