On Tuesday 26 October 2010 09:37:01 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 7:09 AM, Brett Mahar wrote:
> > I agree, there is no way that I could figure that out from reading the
> > book.
>
> Then you failed to read Section 5.3 "General Compilation Instructions".
> This has been discussed many times, and it has always been determined
> that we expect readers to actually *read* the book, and not skip any
> sections. And if you read the book, you'll come across a box labeled
>
> ...
> Brett, I'm sorry you wasted several hours; however, please answer this
> question. Why didn't you read Section 5.3, which in 5 minutes would
> have made the process perfectly clear?
>
> --
> Randy
Randy, you are correct. The information is all there. It probably works well
for someone with a keen grasp of written English and someone who is already
familiar with the build process.
But the book is still wrong because it does not clearly and explicitly guide
readers around this stumbling block. And this isn't the only stumbling block
in the book. As a outsider, I see the LFS Team chanting their 'Read the Book'
mantra, users showing up here confused, the LFS Team continuing their
chanting, and users continuing to show up confused.
There are times when judiciously repeating certain information can be
extremely helpful, especially at locations known to trip people. Judicious
repetition is a solid tool for reinforcing ideas and concepts; it is a tool
that has been used for millenia. So why isn't judicious repetition good
enough for LFS?
I really don't understand the resistance to changing
"GCC now requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC packages. As these packages
may not be included in your host distribution, they will be built
with GCC:"
to something like
"GCC requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC libraries. Because they may
not be included in your host distribution, they must be built as
part of GCC. Be sure to unpack their tarballs within the GCC
source directory (review chapter 5.3)."
'... now requires ...'? GCC has required those libraries for a long time; it's
nothing new. Just state that those libraries are required. BTW, GCC requires
the libraries, not the packages.
'... will be built with GCC'? This evokes two thoughts. (1) "Well, duh!
EVERYTHING gets built with GCC!" (2) "OK; this is automatic; GCC knows how to
do all this." Perhaps this should be reworded (1) to make it much clearer
that those three libraries 'must be built AS PART OF gcc', or 'must be built
INTEGRAL TO gcc', or 'must be built INTO gcc', and (2) to make it clearer
that it's not automatic.
While '... must be built ...' is not 100% true, it suffices to say they must
be built as part of GCC and eliminates a little room for error. LFS users can
learn the difference at another time.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time
is a form of insanity. When LFS users keep stumbling at the same place,
re-phrase that spot and guide them around the problem. Don't just keep
chanting, "Stupid users! RTFB!"
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
