[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:
> > 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,
> There are some conflicting objectives here. One is
> that we want to keep
> it simple. Another is that we would like to highlight
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
This was a good providence. Please, should I open a ticket just for us
all to remember it on February/March?
More information about the lfs-dev