Dan Nicholson wrote: > Why is there no discussion going on about this? I've looked all over, > and I can't find any analysis by you that suggests that these fixes > are appropriate. I even went looking through the (not documented > anywhere on the LFS site) IRC logs: > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~ircd/logs/ > > I really hope this isn't happening in IRC.
No, it's not. This was, admittedly, a mistake on my part to even start on this. I gleaned comments and information from the bugzilla list and from emails scattered in recent posts on this list. From what I read, it looked as if certain 'features' and requests had been decided upon, and even solutions offered. I'm sorry if that wasn't the case. My intention at this point is to add the startfile_prefix_spec sed back in. This mimics what cross-lfs is doing, supports multilib setups, and is a known working solution. The gcc wrapper and all uses of -B will be dropped, as will the -L/usr/lib sed to the specs file, since that is taken care of by the startfile_prefix_spec. I intend to leave the static binutils and ld-new symlink in, so that we don't have to carry over the saved binutils dirs from chapter 5. Being that the current setup isn't completely broken (only with respects to multilib), I have time to wait for comments, but the above are my intentions. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
