Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: >> It seems to me that we should remove udev from LFS and point anyone >> who needs it at the systemd page in BLFS. They've shown that they're >> integrating udev more tightly with systemd, we should move away from >> it. > > Let's see what they say when I post the configure.ac / Makefile.am patch > that I'm about to test out the effects of, using the .tar.xz archive > that Bruce posted a couple days ago. > > Because I might just be overoptimistic, but given the success I had with > sys/capability.h and dbus, I bet we can instead just upgrade to udev-185 > (once it's released), and pass --disable-systemd or --enable-udev-only > or whatever the option ends up being called. Looks like a couple "make > install" overrides will be needed too, to avoid creating some > directories, but that's not a huge deal either. > > (But I do have to test this on an actual chapter-6 setup before sending > the patch. And the patch as-is won't work well for chapter 6; we'd have > to change it to also modify configure and Makefile.in.)
:( I don't remember that conversation but I was obviously involved. In BLFS we just changed the test: sed -i -e '21s/EXPECT_RETURN=1/EXPECT_RETURN=0/' check/check-cmd-options and then said: The make phase is known to fail if the configure option '--with-installed-popt' is used with popt-1.16. I added both of these when we updated to 0.26. Perhaps Dan's version has that fixed. Neither the make or the test fail for me now with --with-installed-popt. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
