Randy McMurchy wrote: > Archaic wrote these words on 05/11/06 19:44 CST: > >> In fact, if you copied and pasted, it shouldn't have even gotten through >> configure. The book has: >> >> C_EXTRA_FLAGS=fno-strict-aliasing \ >> >> instead of: >> >> C_EXTRA_FLAGS=-fno-strict-aliasing \ >> ^ > > This is key. Earlier today, I ran what I thought was the right command. > I know that I had the extra_flags stuff in there. Configure ran right. > The tests failed, over and over. > > I started over and then, kept getting messages during configure about > some crap and it didn't even go 20 lines deep. I wondered like hell > what that was all about. I removed the extra_cflags and ran without > it. Same results. > > If you're saying that Bruce put stuff into the book, that wasn't > tested (tested to me is using copy and pasted stuff from known good > builds straight into the XML file), then I am thoroughly disappointed > in him. If so, and this is a typo on his part, I lost hours. To me, > and I know this is harsh, it is inexcusable. To not put instructions > in the book cut and pasted from known good instructions is just asking > for trouble. > > We're talking about a test suite that takes almost an hour to run. > This is a significant time investment.
Yes, I put a typo in the instructions. No, I don't check every change by rebuilding the book and doing a cut and paste of the instructions. I was making an editorial change to update the book based on the results found by a trusted editor. I saw no need to re-validate what he did. Quoting from the web site: "This is the BLFS Book in its current development state. Changes can happen that break the build of some packages temporarily." I'm sorry I made the mistake and you list time. I didn't do it on purpose. Really. The book has been fixed and no, I didn't re-render the book and do a cut/paste of the corrected instructions. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
