On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Jonathan Oksman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/4/08, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This has been fixed upstream to use a better search for the bash > > interpreter that won't use the BASH variable, which is set by the > > shell. I don't recall when this went in, but the sed might not be > > needed anymore with glibc-2.7. > > That's sounds to me like what has happened. The ldd produced by the > build process in my tests pointed to bash specifically and not sh. > Which I also noted was the same as the toolchain's ldd. > > If what you say is true (and I imagine you are) then chapter 5 is > fine. The sed in chapter 6 is harmless, but no longer needed.
I cut off part of your original message that I wished I hadn't. If, at the time of building glibc, /bin/sh points to dash, then configure will search for a bash program and set the variable BASH to that location. So, in the dash building glibc case, you'll always end up with /bin/bash in ldd. In the case where /bin/sh is /bin/bash, configure thinks you're overriding the location of bash since bash itself sets BASH=/bin/sh. This has been fixed upstream to use a different variable (BASH_PROG maybe?) where you'd really have to set the variable to override the configure search. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
