On 12/23/05, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've done an ICA/Farce report on the LFS Alphabetical branch.
OK, round 2 here. I made a couple changes, some of which were just guesses and haven't affected anything. bison, perl, vim, nscd are still causing problems. A minimal changelog of what I've done since the 20051216 version in ~jhuntwork can be found here: http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-alpha-20051216-reports/ChangeLog The other thing I'm doing now that I forgot to put in there is not adding the glibc locales if an ICA run is being performed. Makes the comparisons cleaner. Again, I haven't put a lot of thought into analyzing the results, but I've put them up for your viewing pleasure. This week I'll be all done with the holiday madness and can return to my regular existence of having my head in a terminal. SOMETHING IMPORTANT: I've done an ICA for both the lfs-alphabetical branch with my changes and the lfs-svn from 20051223. The two sets of results are here: http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-20051223-reports/ http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-alpha-20051216-reports/ Good news: The alphabetical branch only has a couple regressions in the iter1 vs. iter2 from the standard lfs. Bad news: Both builds can use some work since there are diffs in iter1 vs. iter2 that are not repeatable in iter2 vs. iter3. Some of these may be unresolvable like the g++ stuff, but others like bison, perl and vim could use some work. That's all I've got for now. I'll do more "research" this week. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
