On 5/28/12 6:37 PM, Matt Burgess wrote: > On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 18:16 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >> On 5/28/12 6:15 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >>> It's probably safer to add back the command that disables this script >>> but just make sure that our explanation for it is accurate. >> >> Oh, and sorry for the trouble here, I realize I was the one that started >> this... > > No need to apologize! I'm interested in what's made you rethink this? > I see no build issues with the few 'fixed' headers installed. If you > don't think the headers that are being fixed need to be, is it worth > reporting this as an upstream bug in the fixincludes machinery?
Well it is interesting that it hasn't been dropped from their sources yet, but from talking with others who know the history as well as reading the available docs it becomes clear that the script is a hack. The idea of libc headers requiring "fixing" by the compiler is just silly. If there is something that is 'broken' in the libc headers then it should be handled appropriately upstream, and over the years, any broken headers do seem to have been appropriately handled where necessary. Maybe let's wait before updating anything again, just to be 100% certain on what the right path is here, and I'll try to reach out to upstream in the meantime to see if someone there is willing to give me an answer we can work with. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
