On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55:36AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > The script I built to compile and link the programs is fairly long (and > ugly to my taste), but also pretty straight forward. I haven't tested > the programs yet, but the build is clean. > > If we have to, we can create a 'patch' to add the script to the source > and create the executables with that. I wouldn't bother trying to > create libraries for LFS. I don't know of anything that would want to > link against them except the current udev files. Each executable is > about 200K so the overhead isn't too bad. > I'm trying a different approach at the moment (hack 'configure' enough to complete, then see if I can use existing Makefile targets to do most of the heavy lifting). So far I've only got through the trivial part (intltool, XML::Parser, gperf) - changed one line in configure, created a script at /tools/bin/intltool-update to report 0.40.0, linked that also as intltool-extract, intltool-merge, gperf.
Now I'm on to the *fun* parts (libcap, dbus) which I think will require some more substantial changes to configure - don't hold your breathe waiting! Partly I'm doing this to ensure all the important -D defines in the Makefile get set correctly so that udevd will find the other progs, and partly to rely on the existing infrastructure. I'm also hoping this approach will be more-easily maintainable (if it works). But meanwhile, good luck with your testing. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
