akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>>
>> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
>> requirements page in svn:
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html
>>
>> I considered an erratum, but we really don't want to be put in the
>> position of having to bring it forward for each release.
>>
>> What I have is a compromise. I added the note under gcc and added the
>> final few lines in the script. I believe that the combination addresses
>> the slackware problem.
>>
>> If I do not hear anything that needs adjustments in the next few hours,
>> I will release the current svn as LFS-7.5 stable.
>>
>
>
> In the gcc text-section:
> --
> * s/have can be/can be/ ?
OK
> * s@look in /usr/lib for @look in /usr/lib (or /usr/lib64) for @ ?
I've reworded it a bit differently, but added /usr/lib64
> * s|Either all three should be present or absent, but not only one or two.|
Either all three should be present or absent, in the same directory,
but not only one or two.| ?
> This part addresses multilib hosts, where /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 are
> present.
Too detailed for this corner case. We haven't encountered a
pathological situation where the .la files are in different directories.
In fact we have only encountered one repeatable instance.
> Pierre: double-check: are you OK with the 'all three present' part?
>
>
> In the script part, I'd output the path, as that resolves potential
> ambiguity for multilib hosts.
It's a test for users to see if they are ready for LFS. :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
