> > This brought up a philosophical debate in my mind. If the book mentions > moving the sources, but then proceeds to move them to a directory where > only root can write, ISTM that this can be mis-interpreted as "you have > to download sources as root to be able to save them". If someone has to > be root to save new sources in the suggested directory then how far is > that from being root to build? > > Apart from this line of thinking, another thought was why does the book > suggest this at all? Is this something that should be left as an > exercise to the reader instead of something that a new reader will > blindly follow (and they most likely will blindly follow)? That is why I > added "if so desired", "If you wish", and "wherever you choose". > > Suggestions? > > -- > Archaic
Probably a bit late to chip into this now but I have always wondered why the LFS doesn't advocate building outside of the untar'ed source directories where possible. I appreciate that some packages are unable to do this but many of the current LFS sources can be compiled in exactly the same way that is followed for say, glibc and a couple of others where the package author suggests building outside of the tree. (assume you are in source dir for package) patch -Np0 -i ../as_required mkdir ../build-package_name cd ../build-package_name ../package-v.r.s.n/configure --prefix blah blah blah make ... Would this approach not allow one to leave the majority of the sources "lying around" untouched and ready for use in stage 2/3/... and only leaving one having to remove the build directories. Admittedly this does not gain anything in the newer Cross-LFS contexts where the second stage is remote from the original build environment but for LFS constrution on a single system under a chroot, why cant the sources live in the chroot from the start. I am also aware that some packages are patched in different ways depending on the stage of the book you are building at, but again, why not untar the sources and rename the source directories to relflect the stage they'll be used in. So for packages that get patched differently or which cant be built outside of the source tree, you'ld advocate having two source trees package-v.r.s.n-stage-1/ package-v.r.s.n-stage-2/ rather than just assume that there is one single virgin source tree at the start of every stage. Hope that makes sense. -- Regards, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Kevin M. Buckley e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * Systems Administrator * * Computer Centre * * Lancaster University Voice: +44 (0) 1524 5 93718 * * LANCASTER. LA1 4YW Fax : +44 (0) 1524 5 25113 * * England. * * * * My PC runs Linux/GNU, you still computing the Bill Gate$' way ? * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
