LFS-6.5 RC2 plans

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 15:20:32 PDT 2009

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:22:29 -0600, Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>> I've just targetted all the pending package updates for LFS-6.5.
> <snip>
> All package updates are now in, and the 6.5 branch is in package freeze mode.  RC2 is
> nearly here, but before I cut it I'd like to get #2462 (command consistency) dealt with
> as it may change the commands we run, albeit with very low risk.  If anyone has any
> strong opinions on the matter, please make them known a.s.a.p.  If noone particularly
> cares, I'll simply mark the ticket as WONTFIX.

Some of the fixes are adding -v (verbose) which probably should be done.  As I 
say in the ticket, I prefer to leave the -e in seds but am not particular about 
adding it to all seds.  Using different methods aids in the instructional aspect 
of the book.

> If someone could also review the patch attached to #2461 please, I'll get that
> committed, though that can wait until post-RC2 as it's text only.

I don't understand the change.

  Unpack the Binutils
  sources and run the script: <userinput>./config.guess</userinput> and note
  the output. For example, for a modern 32-bit Intel processor the
  old - output will likely be <emphasis>i686-pc-linux-gnu</emphasis>.</para>
  new - output will likely be <emphasis>i686-lfs-linux-gnu</emphasis>.</para>

Since when will it be i686-lfs-linux-gnu?  It's not that way for me on an older 
LFS.  On an LFS 6.5 system it IS that way.  We need to explain why the user may 
see different values in the 2nd position.

Yes, it has to do with the LFS_TGT variable set in .bashrc, but that's not 
explained.  On the host system, it almost certainly won't be i686-lfs-linux-gnu 
unless it is a more recent LFS system.

Also the patch that changes line 128 uses i686-pc-linux-gnu in the example.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list