LFS-6.5: 5.26.1. Installation of Patch - small inconsistency
kevin.m.buckley at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 14:58:03 PDT 2009
>> /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,
but merely the output from the "make" showing the 10/15 references to
the "/bin/ed" define, output which I included for completeness/context.
>> It is interesting (to me anyway) that the patch that gets applied to the build
>> in LFS-6.5:
>> actually changes just the one file that the "define" of ed_PROGRAM appears
>> in, namely, pch.c
> A coincidence.
I am sure it is, but it as I may have been the only person to ever go looking
to see where the confusing "/bin/ed" is being used used, I found it interesting
and of course, I did say that it might only be interesting to me.
> If you look at the code, /bin/ed is called only if the patch is
> a actually en ed style patch, otherwise it just prints an error that patch
> couldn't find ed.
> The instructions in BLFS do install ed in /bin.
Yes, I noted this in my original too. In Chap5 (Temp System) the book makes
a big play of telling the builder that things will be installed below
/tools and I
thus thought it might be confusing to see "/bin/ed", indeed the "/bin" with a
pefixed /tools was probably what caught my eye before the "ed" itself.
> Some BLFS packages do need ed and it is included there for those packages.
Once again, nothing I did not say in my original post, so thanks for confirming
But anyway, I have provided the community with feedback from my experience
and it's obviously not a issue - no harm done and it certainly won't
prevent me from
continuing my latest build - but if someone should wonder about it, the info is
Hope to feedback any experiences from my User Based Management install
over the next few days.
More information about the lfs-dev