On 2020-03-14 16:56 +0800, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: > Indeed, is there any reason why the ordering in GCC Pass 2 > couldn't be: > > > Unpack the required external packages > Change the location of GCC's default dynamic linker > On x86_64 hosts, set the default directory name for 64-bit libraries to “lib”: > Create a full version of an internal header > Fix a problem introduced by Glibc-2.31
There is no reason. We can resort them if we want. > where the two actions not carried out in Pass 1 come > after the three that are? > > Given that there is no reason given for the change in order, > I think this would make the two Pass sections more similar, > thereby highlighting the differences in the second pass. > > > I could also suggest that the wording > > Now fix a problem introduced by Glibc-2.31: > > might be more explict about why, so perhaps: > > Now fix a problem introduced by the Glibc-2.31 we have just built: GCC 9.3.0 has been released and we'll update to it. Then this workaround will be deleted anyway. -- Xi Ruoyao <xry...@mengyan1223.wang> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
