On 2/27/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/26/07, Karen Karenslfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It worked!!! thanks so much. > > Glad it worked out. Another project run by a former LFSer called DIY > Linux always adds the workarounds at the beginning. Maybe we should > start doing the same. > snipped
> > make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build' > > bash-3.1$ echo $? > > 0 > > bash-3.1$ false > > bash-3.1$ echo $? > > 1 > > bash-3.1$ echo $? > > 0 > > bash-3.1$ > > Oops, you've taken me a bit too literally. The first $? is 0, so the > previous command (make -C ld ...) was successful. The other commands > were just an example I posted to show how things work. If you call the > command `false', it will always return 1. Vice versa with `true'. So, > just the first `echo $?' is needed. > > Normally, output from `make' should be pretty clear whether there was > an error or not. $? is just a sure way to check status. > Oops silly me:-) Then it seems thanks to you, I'm getting through gcc. Hopefully if I can get through chpt 5 I'll be substantially free of the host fc6 (save the kernel) & it's "endless stuff" won't trip me. Can't wait. I guess your problem with including workarounds is that you would need so many host specific & given that so far even I seem to be OK with the book it might just confuse us novices more. I'm sick of fc not doing what I want & it seems having no fix available. All very much appreciated. Karen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
