djensen at inebraska.com
Sun Jun 12 11:54:13 PDT 2005
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> David Jensen wrote:
>> 1. The order of the files in flex-2.5.31-debian_fixes-2.patch may
>> sometimes trigger regenerating scan.c, which causes the build to fail
>> if flex is not already installed.
>> -- Solution: Move the scan.c section of the patch to after the
>> scan.l section. Build and install per the current instructions.
> OK, see
> for the updated patch. I realise Alexander posted another solution,
> but I'm worried folks get so accustomed to *not* having to use the
> '-Z' switch, they'll miss it out on this one, then get bitten by what
> is a pretty obscure error.
Great, I'll look at it.
>> 2. Now there is a flex installed but it does not incorporate the
>> patched scan.l and flex.skl.
>> -- Solution: touch scan.l flex.skl; ./configure --prefix=/usr; make;
>> make install. the ./configure, again, is required to pick up the
>> newly installed flex, else scan.c is destroyed and it bombs.
> OK, you've lost me here. If I understand correctly, we've just
> changed the patch from updating scan.l *after* scan.c to have it
> update scan.l *before* scan.c so that scan.c doesn't get rebuilt, thus
> requiring a host-installed flex to be present. Now you're saying that
> we need scan.c to be rebuilt anyway, so that it includes the patched
> contents of scan.l? Is there some way we can change the patch so
> that it changes scan.c only, but includes all the changes from scan.l too?
Yes, but it is huge, see the size of the
flex-2.5.31-debian_fixes-4.patch, it is all in there. 924K.
It seems easier, perhaps 'more pure' to regenerate locally.
More information about the lfs-dev