On Sat, Mar 22, at 02:17 Randy McMurchy wrote: > Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 03/22/08 13:58 CST: > > Hi, > > > > Yesterday, I was trying to install a Tcl/Tk application, when during > > the build procedure, I noticed that the value of TCL_LIBRARY was my > > usual build dir. > > > > Checking further I found a lot of same references in > > /usr/lib/tclConfig.sh > > /usr/lib/tkConfig.sh > > Some time ago when I changed the Tcl/Tk instructions to not use the > old convoluted method we used to use (see previous versions of BLFS > for specifics, it was ugly) I noticed this and brought it up as you > have (check the archives if necessary).
Sorry I don't remember your report. > Because those references don't really do any harm, and nothing we > could tell actually used them, we just left it as it is. Have you > noticed something that it affects in a negative way? If so, what > was it? No I didn't. Running the interpreter and check for this variable returns 0 (empty). % info exists env(TCL_LIBRARY) 0 Setting the TCL_LIBRARY environment variable seems to be unneeded, as the libraries are in a standard directory. So tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh looks to be used only during building and doesn't affect the runtime at all. That's my guess but I can't be sure. > Adding seds in just to fix something that doesn't affect anything > (that was my observation then) doesn't seem worthwhile (meaning it > doesn't really help anything, so why do it). > If you've discovered something that it actually affects negatively, > then by all means we should probably do it. Maybe at least a note in the book? so if a possible failure occurs, the reader should suspect the cause of it and will report it back. By the way we don't mention those scripts in the installed files. -- http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/Hacking -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
