Chris Staub wrote: > On 12/17/2012 06:38 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> >> I see two modifications, one easy to do, the other is perhaps >> impossible. >> >> 1. Change the position of the gcc, so it is not in the beginning nor the >> end of the tests. >> 2. Have a conclusion statement: "x tests passed, y tests failed, if >> y > 0, please fix your host system to fulfill the requirements". >> >> Last time I discussed, I had some feelings, but not the clarity I have >> now, after I having succeeded to help some, and understand and follow >> most support to others' problems. >> >> If I have succeeded to explain myself this time, but my suggestions seem >> wrong, I do not mind, main point is that I still feel that something >> could be improved and many potential users not being scared out anymore.
> Another possibility: leave it mostly unchanged, except for the line that > actually runs the script, redirect stderr to a file (in other words, > "bash version-check.sh 2>errors.log"), then follow up the script with > something like "These are the packages that had issues: [display > errors.log]" At the same time, the "gcc compilation failed" message can > also have a "1>&2" appended to it to make sure it also goes in the error > log. Further, when I added a compile check to CLFS I made the "fail" > message somewhat more verbose, indicating that you might want to go over > the full package list again and check for any missing development packages. There are some conflicting objectives here. One is that we want to keep it simple. Another is that we would like to highlight problems. By far, the biggest problem is having the wrong symlink for /bin/sh. I recently highlighted the symlink issue in Section 5.3 of SVN. I suggest we stay with that until after the next LFS release (March) and then re-evaluate. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
