On 1/9/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alright. Let me see if I'm parsing you correctly. ;) This file > represents the order you've been testing, correct? > > http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-alpha-20060108-reports/scripts.list > > And from your ICA on the above list you've found no differences?
Right about the build order. Not no differences, but no regressions. Take a look at the ICA and farce reports for 1v2: http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-alpha-20060108-reports/ica/REPORT.1V2 http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-alpha-20060108-reports/farce/1v2/farce-differ http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-alpha-20060108-reports/farce/1v2/farce-results I'm pretty sure the perl, vim and nscd differences are time stamp related. Ken, farce does quite a bit more analysis than Greg's ICA functions. Would you mind looking at these results and commenting on differences between the ICA report and the farce report? Still working on a couple nits concerning e2fsprogs and the placement of gettext. farce shows "differ but same code when disassembled." Ken, could you comment on this new feature of farce? Right now I'm running a build with the DIY toolchain adjustment in place that forces the use of the correct glibc for gcc and binutils. I want to see if it affects anything. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
