On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:47:47PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > As a builder, and especially as a BLFS editor, I want to run > these 3 steps individually, and examine the output of each log > file. Sure, this is tedious, but I don't care. If make fails > because I added a dependency that chokes the build, and then > immediately run make install, I'll get who-knows-what installed > on the system.
Don't the &&'s take care of you? I actually do things in a more tedious fashion, but differently from you. I build and install twice. Once running each step individually and then pouring over the log output, then I uninstall it and do a more automated build to get timing and size. Then I diff the log output. But after that, it's always automated and the initial logs are kept for comparison even with future versions. > Sorry for the long post. My take is that it doesn't matter if > the last two binutils commands are used, I'll just adjust times > accordingly. But I'm not sure I'll ever time anything after the > make install commands, unless it really proves to be time-consuming. And glibc is just such a case. I was thinking of a way of reducing future maintenance load because if it is assumed that all commands (sans testsuites) are included, then you don't have to create a list of exceptions to the asumption. -- 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
