On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:54:50PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote: > I know that I am hopping into this conversation a little late (and without > too much prior knowledge of the discussion), but I would definitely suggest > leaving things from Binutils, GCC, Glibc, GMP, Zlib, MPFR, and MPC alone. > There is just too much that can go wrong if we remove those libraries. > (Example, Bruce's libc_nonshared.a removal causing a failure with "cc > dummy.c"). Although I suppose that we could just leave things from GCC, > Glibc, and Binutils alone. I have followed that some distributions have > them and some don't, but I understand that the real question is whether or > not we need them. > > Douglas R. Reno
I take a different view (and I have not been back to my machine yet, to see where it got its first failure :) - if we *know* that a particular static library is needed, we can explain why, and document it. LFS is about learning. But zlib ? Sure, it seems very unlikely that anyone will find a new bug there, but it's just a general library. So far, one testsuite in LFS is known to need the static version. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
