Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Sábado, 25 de Marzo de 2006 22:41, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > To me, it just seems easier to work with dependencies all in one file > rather than separately in each chapter06 file. Especially as we're > looking at including another page (IIRC) that describes more of the > rationale for dependencies and the package order. > > Just throwing out ideas. :) Well, the final decision will be for Matthew. I will create a framework and will send it to you for develop the POC. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
M.Canales.es wrote: The dependencies for each package are placed in the package file under chapter06/, and Xincluded from here in the files under chapter05/. When the dependencies for a package need be updated, only the file for that package under chapter06/ need be edited. I can't see any gain, from the maintenance point of view, on placing the dependencies for all packages on a separate entities file. Well, perhaps not an entity... What about one file somewhere that houses all dependencies for all packages. Then that could be Xincluded in both chapter 5 and chapter 6. To me, it just seems easier to work with dependencies all in one file rather than separately in each chapter06 file. Especially as we're looking at including another page (IIRC) that describes more of the rationale for dependencies and the package order. Just throwing out ideas. :) -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Sábado, 25 de Marzo de 2006 20:52, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Manuel, I wanted to start adding this stuff into the book. I was > wondering if it would make sense to have this as some sort of > dynamically available data. I'm not sure if an entity makes sense (e.g., > autoconf-deps) but that's all I can think of at the moment. Do you have > any suggestions? The dependencies for each package are placed in the package file under chapter06/, and Xincluded from here in the files under chapter05/. When the dependencies for a package need be updated, only the file for that package under chapter06/ need be edited. I can't see any gain, from the maintenance point of view, on placing the dependencies for all packages on a separate entities file. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Chris Staub wrote: OK, I've got the dependency list done - http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt. Probably still not complete, but it's about as close as I'll ever get. Manuel, I wanted to start adding this stuff into the book. I was wondering if it would make sense to have this as some sort of dynamically available data. I'm not sure if an entity makes sense (e.g., autoconf-deps) but that's all I can think of at the moment. Do you have any suggestions? -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Chris Staub wrote: Just added a couple more that I missed earlier...Berkeley DB needs grep, and Glibc needs gzip. And one more...I completely forgot to document deps. for the kernel. Just added that info. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Chris Staub wrote: On another note: I've removed the notes about Bzip2 and Gzip needing to be installed before tar. It seems tar will build with bzip2 and gzip support by default anyway, and simply searches the PATH for those programs at runtime. Just added a couple more that I missed earlier...Berkeley DB needs grep, and Glibc needs gzip. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Chris Staub wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: Sorry...those look valid to me...I've updated my own list to reflect them. The E2fsprogs -> Util-Linux dep. was already there. :) On another note: I've removed the notes about Bzip2 and Gzip needing to be installed before tar. It seems tar will build with bzip2 and gzip support by default anyway, and simply searches the PATH for those programs at runtime. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Dan Nicholson wrote: On 3/15/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Bison must be installed before...tar * Flex must be installed before...Iproute2 Man-DB * E2fsprogs must be installed before...Util-linux You didn't mention these. Are they OK to go in, or do you want me to dig up the rationale? Sorry...those look valid to me...I've updated my own list to reflect them. The E2fsprogs -> Util-Linux dep. was already there. :) -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On 3/15/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > * Bison must be installed before...tar > > * Flex must be installed before...Iproute2 Man-DB > > * E2fsprogs must be installed before...Util-linux You didn't mention these. Are they OK to go in, or do you want me to dig up the rationale? > > Also, I know that tar depends on more than the minimal set of > > inetutils installed in Ch. 5 because ICA showed differences, so > > > > * Inetutils must be installed before...Tar > > Inetutils is never installed in Chap. 5. Huh. Well, that solves that. Shaky memory, I guess. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Dan Nicholson wrote: Chris, here's what's in my (pathetic compared to yours) dependency notes: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/dn-dependencies.txt What I have that's not in yours. * Man-DB: depends on flex * Kbd: depends on gettext * Tar: depends on bison and inetutils All have been added, thanks. * Util-linux: depends on e2fsprogs Already had that. :) * Iproute2: depends on flex Added I'm fairly certain I determined all of these from ICA. I can't immediately tell if these are build order dependencies, too. Although, knowing that flex, bison and e2fsprogs are only built in Ch. 6, I think it's safe to add this. * Bison must be installed before...tar * Flex must be installed before...Iproute2 Man-DB * E2fsprogs must be installed before...Util-linux Also, I know that tar depends on more than the minimal set of inetutils installed in Ch. 5 because ICA showed differences, so * Inetutils must be installed before...Tar Inetutils is never installed in Chap. 5. I don't think gettext has to be installed before kbd, just needs the minimal set from Ch. 5. Can't entirely recall, though. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On 3/13/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I've got the dependency list done - > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt. Probably still not > complete, but it's about as close as I'll ever get. Chris, here's what's in my (pathetic compared to yours) dependency notes: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/dn-dependencies.txt What I have that's not in yours. * Man-DB: depends on flex * Kbd: depends on gettext * Tar: depends on bison and inetutils * Util-linux: depends on e2fsprogs * Iproute2: depends on flex I'm fairly certain I determined all of these from ICA. I can't immediately tell if these are build order dependencies, too. Although, knowing that flex, bison and e2fsprogs are only built in Ch. 6, I think it's safe to add this. * Bison must be installed before...tar * Flex must be installed before...Iproute2 Man-DB * E2fsprogs must be installed before...Util-linux Also, I know that tar depends on more than the minimal set of inetutils installed in Ch. 5 because ICA showed differences, so * Inetutils must be installed before...Tar I don't think gettext has to be installed before kbd, just needs the minimal set from Ch. 5. Can't entirely recall, though. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Chris Staub wrote: OK, I've got the dependency list done - http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt. Probably still not complete, but it's about as close as I'll ever get. Oh. That's cool. Thanks for all the hard work, Chris! I won't be around for the next few days, so either this will have to be picked up when I can get to it, or Matt, Gerard or Archaic will have to jump in and finish it up. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On 3/13/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I've got the dependency list done - > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt. Probably still not > complete, but it's about as close as I'll ever get. Wow, that is impressive. I'll try to review these tomorrow with the info I have to make sure there aren't any glaring mistakes. Now for the editors to decide how this will be used... -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
OK, I've got the dependency list done - http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt. Probably still not complete, but it's about as close as I'll ever get. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: I'll add the order changes you made to the alphabetical branch - hopefully today. The only thing left is to get Chris' dependency documentation in as well. Sorry for the lateness on this. The changes are in now, and as usual, the book is rendered here: http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-alphabetical/ -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 09:00:35PM +0100, M.Canales.es wrote: > > Of course. That is what 'additional' means ;-) Sometimes people (especially me) need an extra level of pedanticness to avoid ambiguity. ;) -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 20:58, Archaic escribió: > > Testsuite depends on: additional dependencies to run the testsuites Of course. That is what 'additional' means ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 07:43:27PM +0100, M.Canales.es wrote: > > Approximate build time: 0.2 SBU > Required disk space: 16.4 MB > Installation depends on: list of build dependencies, like until now > Testsuite depends on: additional dependencies to run the testsuites This looks good, but it would be nice if testsuite deps that are duplicated in build deps were ignored. > I'm for listing only LFS packages, adding a note after the offending "make > check" commands discussing that some test are skipped due dependencies > outside the base system. Or even easier, put a note at the beginning of the book saying that non-book deps are only listed in a table in the appendix. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 18:10, Dan Nicholson escribió: > I saw that and started making those same changes in my sandbox. > However, this could become pretty ugly. Perhaps if there was a > separate Optional Dependencies heading. Or Testing Dependencies. Or, > since LFS doesn't include that many packages, we could make a single > page with a table that lists all the deps. I think this was already > suggested before. The most simplest is (at output look level): Approximate build time: 0.2 SBU Required disk space: 16.4 MB Installation depends on: list of build dependencies, like until now Testsuite depends on: additional dependencies to run the testsuites > Just for the case of automake and it's ridiculous test suite > dependency list, some sort of policy needs to be decided on. I'm for listing only LFS packages, adding a note after the offending "make check" commands discussing that some test are skipped due dependencies outside the base system. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:10:58 -0800 "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/8/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think deps. that are needed for testsuites could be labeled as > > being "optional" (notice I already started doing that for a few > > packages) but you could do the same with several others. For > > example... > > I saw that and started making those same changes in my sandbox. > However, this could become pretty ugly. Perhaps if there was a > separate Optional Dependencies heading. Or Testing Dependencies. Or, > since LFS doesn't include that many packages, we could make a single > page with a table that lists all the deps. I think this was already > suggested before. > > Just for the case of automake and it's ridiculous test suite > dependency list, some sort of policy needs to be decided on. For now, > let's continue putting in the deps as they've been found. We can > always change the appearance later. > > -- > Dan > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page why not follow the gentoo aproach? separate depedencies for what they are needed: runtime, build and testsuite ? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On 3/8/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think deps. that are needed for testsuites could be labeled as being > "optional" (notice I already started doing that for a few packages) but > you could do the same with several others. For example... I saw that and started making those same changes in my sandbox. However, this could become pretty ugly. Perhaps if there was a separate Optional Dependencies heading. Or Testing Dependencies. Or, since LFS doesn't include that many packages, we could make a single page with a table that lists all the deps. I think this was already suggested before. Just for the case of automake and it's ridiculous test suite dependency list, some sort of policy needs to be decided on. For now, let's continue putting in the deps as they've been found. We can always change the appearance later. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Dan Nicholson wrote: On 3/8/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm still updating my dependency list here - http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt Unfortunately my network connection died yesterday, and I neglected to copy this file to my own system (shame on me!) so I couldn't add more till just now. Chris, I started updating my sandbox with what's in the file above. One thing I noticed right off the bat was the deps in automake. So I groveled through automake source and found that most of the deps are for the test suite. Maybe this should be noted separately. Here's the insane list of testsuite deps I came up with: $ grep -rh '^required' tests | \ sed -e 's/^required=//' -e "s/'//g" -e 's/"//g' -e 's/ /\n/g' | \ sort | uniq bison bzip2 emacs etags flex g++ gcc gcj gettext GNUmake gzip icc libtool libtoolize makedepend makeinfo makeinfo-html python ro-dir runtest tex texi2dvi-o What do you guys think about this nonsense? I think the only hard dependencies of automake (for building and running) are listed in the current in the current book. Chris probably knows best, though. -- Dan I think deps. that are needed for testsuites could be labeled as being "optional" (notice I already started doing that for a few packages) but you could do the same with several others. For example... DejaGNU is used by GCC, Binutils, and Findutils testsuites Perl is needed by Make and Udev testsuite [ridiculously long list of packages] used by Automake testsuite -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
On 3/8/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm still updating my dependency list here - > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt > > Unfortunately my network connection died yesterday, and I neglected to > copy this file to my own system (shame on me!) so I couldn't add more > till just now. Chris, I started updating my sandbox with what's in the file above. One thing I noticed right off the bat was the deps in automake. So I groveled through automake source and found that most of the deps are for the test suite. Maybe this should be noted separately. Here's the insane list of testsuite deps I came up with: $ grep -rh '^required' tests | \ sed -e 's/^required=//' -e "s/'//g" -e 's/"//g' -e 's/ /\n/g' | \ sort | uniq bison bzip2 emacs etags flex g++ gcc gcj gettext GNUmake gzip icc libtool libtoolize makedepend makeinfo makeinfo-html python ro-dir runtest tex texi2dvi-o What do you guys think about this nonsense? I think the only hard dependencies of automake (for building and running) are listed in the current in the current book. Chris probably knows best, though. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Matthew Burgess wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Matt, Gerard, any idea on how/when you want to start looking at merging these changes into trunk? A.S.A.P please, though I'd prefer if you could wait until Chris' dependency stuff was in before merging. I'm going to have to trust yours, Dan's and Chris' hard work and judgement on this though as I've not had time to test it myself. Dan's ICA report looks convincing! Cheers, Matt. I'm still updating my dependency list here - http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt Unfortunately my network connection died yesterday, and I neglected to copy this file to my own system (shame on me!) so I couldn't add more till just now. I'm going through a build, carefully watching every package one more time to make sure I have all dependencies. After I get done updating this, I'll create and submit a patch for the book for any more package dependencies that need to be changed, then start working on figuring out how do the additional page that details the reasoning for the build order and listing what dependencies need to be in a certain order. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Matt, Gerard, any idea on how/when you want to start looking at merging these changes into trunk? I'm with Matt on this one and do it sooner rather than later. I do want Chris' dependencies finalized and added to this alphabetical branch so we can implement this in one sitting. I've not had much time to test the proposed changes but they look sane and the rest of you guys had the chance to look at it and I've not heard anything negative about it. There are no show stoppers as far as I can tell. So I'll defer judgement to Dan and Chris. When they say it's ready to go, we're ready to go. Of course the sane thing to do would to update the alphabetical branch and announce that on this list. Render a final book version of it and let it sit for a while, asking people to test it and give it one last shake down before we merge it back into LFS Trunk. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: The build is ICA verified. All tests were run and kernel built with "allyesconfig". Results contain no regressions from current LFS SVN except for two GCC test suite failures from applying the patch in http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1718. Will probably wait until GCC-4.0.3 is released before addressing that issue. I'll add the order changes you made to the alphabetical branch - hopefully today. The only thing left is to get Chris' dependency documentation in as well. Forgot to say 'Good work, Dan'. :) Seriously, you and Chris have both been a tremendous help. Many Thanks. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Matt, Gerard, any idea on how/when you want to start looking at merging these changes into trunk? A.S.A.P please, though I'd prefer if you could wait until Chris' dependency stuff was in before merging. I'm going to have to trust yours, Dan's and Chris' hard work and judgement on this though as I've not had time to test it myself. Dan's ICA report looks convincing! Cheers, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
Dan Nicholson wrote: The build is ICA verified. All tests were run and kernel built with "allyesconfig". Results contain no regressions from current LFS SVN except for two GCC test suite failures from applying the patch in http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1718. Will probably wait until GCC-4.0.3 is released before addressing that issue. I'll add the order changes you made to the alphabetical branch - hopefully today. The only thing left is to get Chris' dependency documentation in as well. Matt, Gerard, any idea on how/when you want to start looking at merging these changes into trunk? -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
