DJ Lucas wrote: > On 09/30/2012 12:04 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >> What does '/usr/share/doc/flex-2.5.37' have to do with 'ln -sv libfl.a >> /usr/lib/libl.a'? I don't see the connection.
> Sorry, it is only related in that it's the same package. I'm not sure > what the policy is for being able to reinstall a package without making > changes to the instructions. I don't know that we have a policy on that. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ensure a re-install would work. > I don't know if using -f for all ln > commands would be appropriate throughout chapter 6 or not. This is a > very minor issue and could easily be ignored as it would be best > practice not to use -f when not needed, or it could be 'fixed' in that > it is appropriate for a reinstall of flex. Could just as easily argue > that the command should be removed in a reinstall/upgrade. I just ran > into a minor issue that also tripped up jhalfs and figured I'd report it. Looking at what we have now, I think most places have ln -svf. IN some cases -svfn. Reviewing for places where -f is not used: bootscripts Makefile Chapter 4: ln -sv $LFS/tools / Chapter 5 tcl - one place bash - one place binutils - one place gcc-pass1 - one place gcc-pass2 - onen place Chapter 6 Creating directories - Four places Creating Creating Essential Files and Symlinks - Five places gcc - Two places groff - Two places bzip2 - three places kmod - two places vim - two places flex - one place adjusting toolchain - one place Chapter 8 grub - one place The only place I think it makes any difference would be in Chapter 6 in the six actual packages but even there, the gcc and vim cases are covered in BLFS for reinstallation. I note that in a couple of cases we use ln -vs instead of ln -sv. I think we need to be more consistent there. (Chapter 5 bash and gcc-pass*). I will fix that for sure. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
