x2...@lycos.com wrote: That was a very entertaining post. Thanks.
On a more serious note, we do try to address problems that come up. The issue is that we have seen lots of posts where the final resolution is "oops, it was my error, not the book's". (Which you humorously noted.) The reason we ask for a "standard" build is so we can try to duplicate the problem. For instance, I cannot build the 'standard' -dev book right now because the kernel panics when built with the default configuration on x86_64 hardware. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44129 I don't get much response from the gcc team, but I understand why. I suspect they can't duplicate the problem, although there have been reports of the same problem by others. Unlike LFS, they are even paid to develop gcc (but not by me of course). There are fundamentally two general situations where we change LFS: when there is an upstream fix or when we can duplicate the problem. To do otherwise would cause even more problems. As far as nscd.c goes, the real problem is to determine why some systems appear to need -lssp and others don't. Then a fix the glibc build system can be made. Unfortunately, the only ones that can do that are those that can duplicate the problem. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
