Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Sukucorp Sukucorp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > 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. >> > >> >> As of today[1], we are. That is what started this thread. >> >> [1] http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-book/2008-April/022060.html > > Right...I'm following this conversation :) > > This commit should probably be reverted, IMO.
I'm not sure why. The changes I added only say to change some (three) symbolic links or add them if they don't already exist. These changes to links can't really hurt and it establishes a better base configuration from which to build LFS. The unsaid implication here is that if a user doesn't know how to change a symbolic link, then they are not yet ready for LFS. Resetting the links by a user is just as trivial as making them. The only real change I can see being made on the vast majority of systems that need any change at all is to change /bin/sh to point to bash. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
