Hey everyone, it's been a while! I'm going to get my urge to talk off-topic out right now so I don't litter the point of this message. I've been keeping up with the mailing lists and I just wanted to say that all of the ideas and suggestions I've read recently about the direction of LFS and BLFS are sounding pretty amazing. I'm very interested in seeing the direction that this project is going to take in the long run. I don't have any 64bit systems myself but the whole situation reminds me of one of my early LFS builds (back when the book was version 4 I believe) where I insisted on compiling 386 code on a 586 arch. I know it's not really the same though... it makes me look forward to getting a modern cpu to join that fun.
I can hardly imagine trying to build for 386 code again, especially now with glibc dropping 386 support... anyway, enough rambling and onto the topic at hand. I'm working through the current development LFS book and one section struck me as a bit odd. In "6.9. Glibc-2.7": > The ldd shell script contains Bash-specific syntax. Change its default > program interpreter to /bin/bash in case > another /bin/sh is installed as described in the Shells chapter of the BLFS > book: > > sed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.bash.in I'm building a 'by the book' lfs system right now, and looking at my toolchain's ldd (which did not have this substitution in chapter 5) it appears to be using bash by default. Using dash as an example alternative sh, this raises a few questions to my mind: - Do people install dash into their toolchain? At this point in the book we've separated ourselves from the host system binaries and only bash is available under a pure lfs build situation. - Do people install dash before they build glibc? The thought of that brings back horrible flashbacks from before I understood why that would be a bad idea... (*shudders*) yeah, this can't be right, ignore that one. - If dash is installed in the toolchain, does this create a problem with glibc's ability to use bash for what is known to be a bash specific script? I've conducted two tests to find out whether this sed is necessary using those questions as a basis for my analysis. Test #1: Installing glibc without the sed substitution using a 'by the book' lfs toolchain. Result: Compilation produced /bin/ldd using /bin/bash as the interpreter. Test #2: Installing glibc without the sed substitution using a toolchain containing a secondary shell for /bin/sh. I've used dash for the test. Result: Compilation produced /bin/ldd using /bin/bash as the interpreter. Of note, in both cases the ./configure script selected /bin/bash when detecting bash. Perhaps the problem used to be in the configure script. I wouldn't know as this is really my first time tinkering with glibc directly. I think this sed can be safely removed from the book as glibc appears to be properly choosing the correct shell for ldd. Any thoughts? The change is simple enough but I'll happily create a ticket if desired. I'd like to just make a patch against the book eventually as another learning experience but it'll have to wait until another day - my computer is barely in a usable state right now as I'm starting fresh with it. Jonathan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
