Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/25/07 19:22 CST: > Whoops. No, that's correct. When I was testing out the command, the > first output is what I had. But that's only because I usually don't > install the /usr/local hierarchy until it's needed. Checking again > now, your output is correct and we'll have to change the -B2 to -B3 > like you say.
Now I see what the issue is, I didn't read the part about what *should* be displayed. Thanks for the cluebat, Dan. I always get the same results as I don't install /usr/local either. In fact, why does LFS? It isn't used, why add it? I asked years ago why LFS adds /usr/local/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf and never got an answer. I think we should ditch it, but oh well, perhaps there's some historical value to it. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 19:31:00 up 1 day, 18:11, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.19, 0.15 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
