On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:48 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Baho Utot wrote: > > On 04/01/2013 11:45 AM, Matt Burgess wrote: > >> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:16 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: > >>> Confused again :) > >>> > >>> Is the following still required with this --disable-install-libiberty > >>> switch? > >>> > >>> from the book... > >>> Workaround a bug so that GCC doesn't install libiberty.a, which is > >>> already provided by Binutils: > >>> sed -i 's/install_to_$(INSTALL_DEST) //' libiberty/Makefile.in > >>> > >>> or does just using the switch fix the problem and the sed isn't needed? > >> See the relevant changelog entry (from 2013-03-29). In short, > >> --disable-install-libiberty is buggy: > >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56780 > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Matt. > >> > > > > OK..., but would it not have been better to not use the switch until it > > worked as the sed does the same thing? > > > > I am now just waiting so I can build April fools version of LFS, looks > > like I'll need to build both books tomorrow ;) > > I agree that we should hold off until the switch works.
I was caught in 2 minds as to whether or not to put the switch in. I erred on the side of "I'll probably forget if I don't do it now" :) > I do have a > couple of changes pending that I'll commit today (kernel and systemd > increments). I can comment out the switch too. Thanks. I'm going to attempt to fix the configure script, but in the mean time commenting it out is fine. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
