On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
I think Jeremy did use the initial release of farce in the early days
of the alphabetical branch, despite its bugs.
What improvements have you made?
Fixed processing of ar archives that appeared to differ, another fix
for '/' as one of the pathes, and some regex improvements - it worked
for me when originally tested, but then failed next time I tried to use
it, so I had to fix it. Also allowing for the expected different files
to be in lib64, and a list of all the files that actually are identical.
Anyway, I suspect that the introduction of randomization into the
toolchain might soon make this idea of subsequent builds being identical
into a historical curiosity ;)
I'm sorry, what? Have I missed something? What do you mean introducing
randomization into the toolchain?
--
JH
I'm seeing strangenesses in 'size' from glibc snapshots when I try
repeated CLFS builds - not exactly unexpected, but I'm starting to think
some of it is deliberate. I spent an hour or two earlier looking at the
fedora testing srpms for glibc and gcc, randomization and stack-smashing
protection came up several times in one or other of the changelogs.
At the moment, the phrase is *might* make this a historical curiosity,
certainly for LFS itself, which is reluctant to use anything other than
an official release. As with everything in glibc, it's hard for an
outsider to penetrate.
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
