DJ Lucas wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >> DJ Lucas wrote: >> >>> I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc >>> failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY >>> thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build >>> inline beyond that point, because that fixed the problem of the extra >>> host system requirement. The extra packages are minimal, and required >>> one way or the other. Shared seems better IMO as I use GMP anyway. It >>> might not be a bad idea (less maintenance) to build the same way for >>> both early builds and only build gmp and mpfr standalone for the final, >>> though I haven't tried that yet. >>> >> I was going to ask >> what you thought about making both passes in chapter 5 the same, but >> you've touched on that as well. I don't suppose it makes a big >> difference there. The only advantages I can see for building inline for >> both passes are perhaps a slightly smaller set of temporary tools, a >> marginal amount of time saved by the user (especially if building by >> hand) and, again, slightly less chance of error. >> > You forgot the editor's responsibility. If something changes in GMP at > a later date, it would only have to be changed in one place instead of > two. It's worth investing the time to make and test that change IMO. > I'll try it in my Wednesday build.
Typically, the changes for a package are minimal -- a change in md5sum, etc. A patch would require changes in two places, but for these packages, that is pretty unlikely. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
