[lfs-dev] Host System Requirements

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Mon Dec 17 08:29:06 PST 2012


--- Em seg, 17/12/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:

> De: Bruce Dubbs
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-dev] Host System Requirements
> Para: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Data: Segunda-feira, 17 de Dezembro de 2012, 13:13
> Chris Staub wrote:
> > On 12/17/2012 06:38 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> >>
> >> I see two modifications, one easy to do, the other
> is perhaps
> >> impossible.
> >>
> >> 1. Change the position of the gcc, so it is not in
> the beginning nor the
> >> end of the tests.
> >> 2. Have a conclusion statement: "x tests passed, y
> tests failed, if
> >> y > 0, please fix your host system to fulfill
> the requirements".
> >>
> >> Last time I discussed, I had some feelings, but not
> the clarity I have
> >> now, after I having succeeded to help some, and
> understand and follow
> >> most support to others' problems.
> >>
> >> If I have succeeded to explain myself this time,
> but my suggestions seem
> >> wrong, I do not mind, main point is that I still
> feel that something
> >> could be improved and many potential users not
> being scared out anymore.
> 
> > Another possibility: leave it mostly unchanged, except
> for the line that
> > actually runs the script, redirect stderr to a file (in
> other words,
> > "bash version-check.sh 2>errors.log"), then follow
> up the script with
> > something like "These are the packages that had issues:
> [display
> > errors.log]" At the same time, the "gcc compilation
> failed" message can
> > also have a "1>&2" appended to it to make sure
> it also goes in the error
> > log. Further, when I added a compile check to CLFS I
> made the "fail"
> > message somewhat more verbose, indicating that you
> might want to go over
> > the full package list again and check for any missing
> development packages.

I like these ideas, and will change my script accordingly. Thanks,
Chris.

> There are some conflicting objectives here.  One is
> that we want to keep 
> it simple.  Another is that we would like to highlight
> problems.

It has been proved by posts in the support that the latter is the
choice, if there is no way of keeping the former. Or a second script
would be created just to analyze the result of the simpler one.

> By far, the biggest problem is having the wrong symlink for
> /bin/sh.  I 
> recently highlighted the symlink issue in Section 5.3 of
> SVN.  I suggest 
> we stay with that until after the next LFS release (March)
> and then 
> re-evaluate.

This was a good providence. Please, should I open a ticket just for us
all to remember it on February/March?

[]s,
Fernando



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list