Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Thank you Ryan. When I asked you several times before to give technical > reasons why we should use the *startfile_prefix_spec, *this* is what I > was after. Nothing so concise existed in previous threads.
I have given some major thought to this. And I waited to hear comments. I think at this point, everyone that wanted to, or is able to comment, has done so. I have done my best to consider both sides equally. And because of the discussion, my position on the methods proposed has swayed back and forth. It hasn't been easy to see through all of the details/arguments and find what's best for LFS. Yet, at this point, I believe the right decision is to put the *startfile_prefix_spec back in. Here is my reasoning for the above: It works. We know it works. We've been using this for quite some time in our stable book, and we've experienced no problems from it. There exists no technical reason for us to change our methods now (ie, some breakage occurs because of it). The only disadvantages are that we can't use '-specs' to point to a different specs file (we have never done that anyway), and upstream has 'accepted' a patch to remove this feature. But that was a year ago, and it still isn't applied. *startfile_prefix_spec appears to give us what we want while having as little impact on the build as possible (IOW, not setting a bunch of other flags and overrides). It seems to me that, because of that, there is far less chance of a breakage slipping into the build. It would be more robust. That's my take on it. I'm anxious to get this finalized so that we can get back to other development and start closing out some of our other bugs. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
