On 08/24/2014 08:11 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
We have always assumed that the recommended packages have been installed
for the BLFS instructions. I just made that more explicit in the "Notes
on Building Software" section:
I've seen it (now my Firefox refreshes correctly :-) ).
Probably this issue will be recurrent in the list, like that of top
posting. Perhaps a FAQ page (can be used as standard reply email) can
help you editors with this matter.
"Recommended means that BLFS strongly suggests this package is installed
first for a clean and trouble-free build, that won't have issues either
during the build process, or at run-time. The instructions in the book
assume these packages are installed. Some changes or workarounds may be
required if these packages are not installed."
Nice entry for the FAQ page for LFS builders...
I finally build using book's instructions
./configure --prefix=/usr \
--enable-udev &&
make
but still get some tests not passed. Anyway, there is a second issue.
Tests are not always clean. That may be an upstream issue or a BLFS
issue, however if the vast majority of tests pass, then it's usually OK.
Next iteration in my scripts is to make testing optional.
(I'm playing with gcc compilers and it's so boring to build one...)
Maybe another entry in the FAQ page with regards to the benefits and
practical use of tests in LFS.
You are using the development version of the book, so you should not be
suprised if there are issues, especially if you are deviating from what
BLFS expects.
-- Bruce
Not surprised really. My first LFS was 7.3 or 7.4 and could experience
the joy of BLFS SVN changing just in the middle of my construction process.
What made me post the question was that it really had no sense what I
was getting. My last BLFS build, 7.5 SVN mid-June, is working at an
incredible level of satisfaction. But what I was reading from my monitor
made no sense at all. Turned out it had no sense at all.
Now I'm starting to think that my experiments some weeks ago with
FF/TB/XUL, building and rebuilding versions 24, betas and 31, broke my
Firefox profile or the browser's cache. Don't know.
I appreciate the time you all have dedicated to this thread.
Thank you.
ALZ.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
