On 4/17/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here are available the build logs and ICA/farce reports from my last 5 builds: > > http://www.macana-es.com/logs/ <snip> > build4 has 2 iterations, no testsuites, no stripping, and no reinstallation > issues.
Looks great, Manuel. To allay any fears, these files: Binary files iteration-1/usr/bin/perl and iteration-2/usr/bin/perl differ Binary files iteration-1/usr/bin/perl5.8.8 and iteration-2/usr/bin/perl5.8.8 differ Binary files iteration-1/usr/bin/vim and iteration-2/usr/bin/vim differ Binary files iteration-1/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i686-linux/CORE/libperl.a/perl.o and iteration-2/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i686-linux/CORE/libperl.a/perl.o differ Binary files iteration-1/usr/sbin/nscd and iteration-2/usr/sbin/nscd differ always differ because they have embedded timestamps. A lot of binaries include dates in them, so if the build goes overnight, you'll see a lot of differences. These guys (perl is the worst) put the time in, too. If you're interested, I have hacks to remove the timestamps at build time. I did this to be absolutely certain that the differences were timestamp related and not build related. I wouldn't use the hacks on for anything more than testing, though. This file: Binary files iteration-1/usr/lib/locale/locale-archive and iteration-2/usr/lib/locale/locale-archive differ always differs, too. Greg Schafer pointed out to me some time ago that even if you always define the same locales, the locale-archive file will differ. Possibly this is due to timestamps created by localedef. I don't know. I always suppress the locale installation during ICA runs, but it probably doesn't matter. All of the c++ files always differ, too. Greg asked on the GCC list a long time ago about this. They replied that, indeed, the c++ binaries have some random bits embedded. I don't recall the reason. These files: /usr/include/c++/4.0.3/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/stdc++.h.gch/O0g.gch /usr/include/c++/4.0.3/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/stdc++.h.gch/O2g.gch differ for me between the first and second runs, but not the second and third. I don't know the reason why. I've always meant to look into it, but never got around to it. It seems like it's over my head. Results are exactly the same as I always get. Looks great. I'll try to do a jhalfs build on anduin to see if the same results come back as with my scripts. I don't have a timeframe for that, though. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
