Hallo, Am 08/01/18, 16:21 schrieb Ken Moffat: >> I managed to compile unzip 6.0 by defining NO_LCHMOD in the Makefile but >> I'm not completely sure about the implications. Obviously unzip now can >> no longer modify symlink attributes, but I cannot judge if this is a >> serious restriction. Given the significance of unzip on unix it's >> negligible imho. Any other thoughts? >> > > Unless you have done something to treat warnings as errors, > unzip60 compiles fine without any attempt to define NO_LCHMOD. > > Many packages in BLFS produce compiler warnings.
you are correct, unzip binary is created, I was wrong there. It is only a warning despite the looks as if the linker complains about something missing. My internal pattern matching needs to be retrained ;) cc -o unzipsfx unzipsfx.o crc32_.o crypt_.o extract_.o fileio_.o globals_.o inflate_.o match_.o process_.o ttyio_.o ubz2err_.o unix_.o -s unix_.o: In function `set_symlnk_attribs': unix.c:(.text+0x13bc): warning: lchmod is not implemented and will always fail But as I wrote I'm not sure about the implications. Obviously some functionality is missing in newer gcc and libc. Has chmod changed its semantics so that it takes over the job from lchmod completely or does someone no longer deem it necessary to provide a means for changing symlink attributes? Tschau...Thomas -- "Do you wanna be a legend or a passing footprint on the sands of time?"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
