On 12/16/05, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > You sound like you've done the recursive build a number of times and > > anticipate these differences in farce. I'd rather nip that one in the > > bud and just keep the same environment. > > > Not exactly a recursive build: if a system builds itself again, to my > satisfaction, and builds (once) the parts of blfs I care about, I regard > it as ok. The recursive build is, or was, based on three builds to > identify which files always differed. I settle for a rebuild.
This is no longer true, as far as I can tell, and it was never based on a specified number. Using three or more builds was just to see at what point there stop being differences. The goal is always that the second build would be the same as the first. Only two is necessary to do the diffing, obviously. I guess the one caveat with using less than 3 builds is you wouldn't be 100% sure that certain files will always differ. > > FWIW, this is the method I'll be taking. I'm gonna start hammering > > out builds on Christmas. I'll be out of town for a week, so there's > > nothing but spare cycles. > > > > Dedication, using all that drinking time ;) Hey, I'll be drinking plenty! That's what scripts are for. > ICA is Greg's name, AFAIK he had rather a lot to do with it so he gets > to name it. If somebody understands it enough, and cares enough, to use > it and report back to us, that's great. I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than there is. Unless he's implementing a different method on his own than what appears in his build scripts, it's exactly how I described in the previous email. As I said above, the number of builds is inconsequential unless you're trying to guarantee that a file will always differ. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
