Le 14/03/2020 à 09:56, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev a écrit : > I note, because my PkgUser Book has explicit sections for > unpacking the sources that the vanilla book doesn't, that, > in Chapter 5 GGC Pass2, the order of actions prior to the > creation of the build directory is: > > > 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”: > > > however in GCC Pass 2, it's > > > Create a full version of an internal header > Change the location of GCC's default dynamic linker > On x86_64 hosts, set the default directory name for 64-bit libraries to “lib”: > Unpack the required external packages > Fix a problem introduced by Glibc-2.31 > > > Is there any reason why the required external packages can't be > the first thing done in GCC Pass 2 as well? > > 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 > > 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: >
I think this will be removed in next version of gcc (as mentioned by Xi Ruoyao), but in case this isn't, and glibc-2.32 appears, the problem will still have been introduced by glibc-2.31, which we won't be building at all... So no, in this case, I do not think we should change the wording. The problem actually is rather the use of line numbers in a sed, which is really not explicit at all! But it was easier this way. BTW, I agree about reordering the commands. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
