David Jensen wrote:
1. The order of the files in flex-2.5.31-debian_fixes-2.patch may
sometimes trigger regenerating scan.c, which causes the build to fail if
flex is not already installed.
-- Solution: Move the scan.c section of the patch to after the scan.l
section. Build and install per the current instructions.
OK, see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~matthew/flex-2.5.31-debian_fixes-3.patch
for the updated patch. I realise Alexander posted another solution, but
I'm worried folks get so accustomed to *not* having to use the '-Z'
switch, they'll miss it out on this one, then get bitten by what is a
pretty obscure error.
2. Now there is a flex installed but it does not incorporate the
patched scan.l and flex.skl.
-- Solution: touch scan.l flex.skl; ./configure --prefix=/usr; make;
make install. the ./configure, again, is required to pick up the newly
installed flex, else scan.c is destroyed and it bombs.
OK, you've lost me here. If I understand correctly, we've just changed
the patch from updating scan.l *after* scan.c to have it update scan.l
*before* scan.c so that scan.c doesn't get rebuilt, thus requiring a
host-installed flex to be present. Now you're saying that we need
scan.c to be rebuilt anyway, so that it includes the patched contents of
scan.l? Is there some way we can change the patch so that it changes
scan.c only, but includes all the changes from scan.l too? Looking at
the two hunks of the patch, this would seem to be trivial enough, but
I'm not at all familiar with flex and the whole scanner/grammar stuff to
be certain of what to do.
3. The flex++ link has not been created since the switch to 2.5.31. I
didn't miss it in nearly a year, but maybe it is supposed to be there.
-- Solution: ln -s flex++ /usr/bin/flex
Well, that's trivial enough I suppose.
I could file a bug.
Issue 1 is bug #1506.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
