On 01/05/2013 07:35 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > > I have recurrently written about this, here. > > My error with this page, even after having built one or two versions of > LFS, was that the last line: > > "gcc compilation OK" > > that made me ignore the other lines, when some of these lines were > telling me that I had requirements to fix. > > I thought: "all right, host can compile, so the other lines are just > additional information or recommendations, may be". > > My suggestion in a previous post was to move that line to an earlier > place in the script. > > Chris gave better suggestions than mine. But as the SVN version has > been modified, Bruce does not think that anything is necessary, "I have > modified the book, let us wait until new release on March". Having read > that before my original post, I told him that we could at least create > a ticket to remember about that on March, but he still thinks it to be > unnecessary. Perhaps he is right, if the complaints to come from the > stable, not the SVN, and the issues will continue to appear in this list > so as to keep us aware of the problem. However, if the new version does > not work as expected there will be six more months until the eventual > needed fix be introduced, and go into the following release. > > []s, > Fernando
I've implemented my idea at Cross-LFS; you can see the page here - http://cross-lfs.org/view/svn/x86/prologue/hostreqs.html - I've also added slightly more explicit descriptive text. Also, I find it funny how often the sh -> dash issue is pointed out as an issue, yet to my knowledge it hasn't caused any actual problems for some time now. Makes me wonder if it's only there to verify whether users are really reading the book, rather than for any real, practical purposes. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
