Hi there,
currently running through a build of LFS-6.5 with a view to
adopting a "username-per-package" Package Management
approach, as is my want every now and again.
Whilst watching the output of the Temporary System build of
patch, I noticed that the build process is hard-coding the path
to an
LFS 6.5
5.31. Stripping
At this point LFS says
To save nearly 20 MB more, remove the documentation:
rm -rf /tools/{info,man}
however on my build, there seem to be close to another 10MB below these two
directories that could also go ?
8.7M/tools/share/info
1.1M/tools/share/man
$ ls /t
Kevin Buckley wrote:
> LFS 6.5
> 5.31. Stripping
>
> At this point LFS says
>
> To save nearly 20 MB more, remove the documentation:
>
> rm -rf /tools/{info,man}
>
> however on my build, there seem to be close to another 10MB below these two
> directories that could also go ?
>
> 8.7M/tools/sh
Kevin Buckley wrote:
> /lfs/patch-2.5.9/patch.c:1327: warning: the use of `mktemp' is
> dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
If you look at the code, there is a comment:
/* It is OK to use mktemp here, since the rest of the code always
opens temp files with O_EXCL. It might be better to use mkst
>> /lfs/patch-2.5.9/patch.c:1327: warning: the use of `mktemp' is
>> dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
>
> If you look at the code, there is a comment:
>
> /* It is OK to use mktemp here, since the rest of the code always ...
Thanks for pointing that out but that was not what I was posting about,
bu
> This is a old / long standing point that folks bring up now and again.
> Since /tools is very temporary, the book has not historically worried
> about the documentation that gets installed by the temp tools.
Indeed!
The last time I built an LFS system from scratch (bit tautological
that!), I'd
