On Thu, 5 May 2011 22:19:58 +0200 Erik Blomqvist <erikblomqvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I hope this is the right mailing list for this question. If nothing else you > seem to be the right people to ask. > > Considering that dash and mawk are smaller and faster than bash and gawk I > was a bit surprised to find that LFS doesn't support them. Even Ubuntu, that > is a huge distribution by comparison, uses those packages because they > provide better performance. Considering that one of the reasons for building > your own linux system is to get better performance, it would make sense to > use the best performing packages. So why doesn't LFS use or at least support > these packages? > > I'm specifically interested in knowing if there are any technical reasons > for not supporting these packages, e.g. package x doesn't work with > dash/mawk. If it's just for historical reasons, maybe it's time to > reconsider? > I don't know about mawk as I've not tried it, but dash is not hard to live with. Glibc needs a sed to a Makefile sed -i 's/ot \$/ot:\n\ttouch $@\n$/;s:) $(SHELL):) bash:' manual/Makefile Beyond that there are some strange problems where the configure script tests the shell that it's running in and assumes that it is /bin/sh. So if you're logged in to a bash session but /bin/sh is pointing at dash the Makefiles assume /bin/sh is bash and then fail with errors because dash doesn't support += syntax. See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2007-12/msg00016.html Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
