On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Sukucorp Sukucorp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > yacc (bison) - Definitely needed since we patch the bash parse.y file > > in Ch. 5 and yacc will need to be rerun. Could add bison to Ch. 5 > > before bash, but IMO it's easier for the host to just install bison. > > I don't remember if bash calls bison or yacc. If it is the former, we > don't need to check yacc -> bison symlink.
If it uses the autoconf macro AC_PROG_YACC (which I would be very, very surprised if it didn't), then the search goes: bison -y, byacc, yacc. So, I suppose any yacc would be fine, although I'd be surprised to find any Linux system where this is not bison. > > awk - Definitely needed by the glibc build, and gawk in particular due > > to use of some non-portable features. > > glibc needs gawk but it doesn't need awk -> symlink. True. Same thing as above with AC_PROG_AWK: gawk, mawk, nawk, then awk. > > bash - Not needed for actual building, but glibc's ldd and tzselect > > need either bash or ksh to work. The values will be substituted at > > configure time. I don't know what happens without them, and it's > > probably not that important in Ch. 5 if those utilities aren't there. > > However, we create the LFS user with /bin/bash as the login shell, and > > this can't be substituted as is because we set up the environment > > through the bash initialization files. > > Ditto. bash has to be installed but need not be the default shell. Agreed (although there are plenty of shady configure scripts in the wild that use non-Bourne or non-POSIX syntax). > Randy echoed my thoughts in a much better manner. We should not check > for something if the result of the check does not make any difference > in the build. Agreed, and I don't think we're doing that right now. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
