Baho Utot wrote: > On 04/01/2013 11:45 AM, Matt Burgess wrote: >> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:16 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: >>> Confused again :) >>> >>> Is the following still required with this --disable-install-libiberty >>> switch? >>> >>> from the book... >>> Workaround a bug so that GCC doesn't install libiberty.a, which is >>> already provided by Binutils: >>> sed -i 's/install_to_$(INSTALL_DEST) //' libiberty/Makefile.in >>> >>> or does just using the switch fix the problem and the sed isn't needed? >> See the relevant changelog entry (from 2013-03-29). In short, >> --disable-install-libiberty is buggy: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56780 >> >> Regards, >> >> Matt. >> > > OK..., but would it not have been better to not use the switch until it > worked as the sed does the same thing? > > I am now just waiting so I can build April fools version of LFS, looks > like I'll need to build both books tomorrow ;)
I agree that we should hold off until the switch works. I do have a couple of changes pending that I'll commit today (kernel and systemd increments). I can comment out the switch too. My test build last night was clean for gcc and only the 2 ignored tests in glibc. There are two tests in procps-ng that I want to check out, but I think they are artifacts of jhalfs. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
