Re: [lfs-dev] 6.17. GCC-4.8.0

2013-04-01 Thread Matt Burgess
On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:48 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 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? >

Re: [lfs-dev] 6.17. GCC-4.8.0

2013-04-01 Thread Bruce Dubbs
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 ins

Re: [lfs-dev] 6.17. GCC-4.8.0

2013-04-01 Thread Baho Utot
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

Re: [lfs-dev] 6.17. GCC-4.8.0

2013-04-01 Thread Matt Burgess
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/insta

[lfs-dev] 6.17. GCC-4.8.0

2013-04-01 Thread Baho Utot
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 th