On Mit, 2006-03-15 at 21:06 +0000, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger Blake wrote: > > > Although the script might be a good *short term* plan I think an adequate > > long term solution requires a complete evaluation of *each* header - > > identifying what code to delete or include. From what I can see the > > majority > > of these headers are NOT required by userspace. I have got the basic LFS > > building with about 150 headers only. Possibly guess at another 150 for a > > complete set. (figures for i386 only) > > > Personally, I think the fun and games will come in BLFS. Certainly I > think I've noticed Mariusz's "this time I'll include it for you" in my > logs quite often. Of course, as long as fedora are using their own > headers and packages build like that, I don't think many upstream > maintainers will be too concerned.
I've now built about 550 packages on x86 and on x86_64 with my generated header set and besides the few problems already mentioned before I've got only two additional problems in the last 300 packages (one needed header was missing and I had to add --with-pcap=linux to the configure lines of libpcap and nmap), so IMO it's feasible. BTW: That's without any "this time I'll include it for you" workarounds, with that there'd be probably only one package with a problem so far, rp-pppoe. Regards, Jürg -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
