> > I don't understand why you would want to rename the library. From > memory, rust installs the proverbial load of libraries, each of > which has a hash added to its name.
No, just naïveté on my part--I've been building LFS for some time now and I've NEVER seen anything like that before!!! > > Did 1.25 complete it's install ? Yes. I went back to square one, blew away 1.19 & 1.25, rebuilt 1.25, verified my package management didn't identify any files that had pre-existed, blew it away yet again, and checked /usr/local/lib/librust*. There was still something there apparently from 1.19, deleted all that and built 1.25 for a third time. It's as clean as it's going to be (any other leftovers will be left behind when I clone the binaries for testing a clean "distro" candidate), even with the 84 errors because I never build gdb--not about to try to learn how to use it! Builds failed in the install program trying to do the DESTDIR install in the svn book, So, since I build as root, I removed that and it installed OK. Build script needed a finishing ldconfig--perhaps my problem with the previous FF build? That's where I am at the moment. > > rustc --version 1,25,0 > cargo --version 0.26.0 > an unstable configuration. I forget the details, but I think rust Yes, indeed. Details get increasingly slippery things! > it cannot be found in normal use'. If it has to be reinstated, > backups are also useful if you know exactly what was installed - so > your package manager might solve that. "pio" does that very well! I have it make a backup of the new files immediately after it processes a build. These are what I use when I clone. I try as hard as I can to preserve their virginity. > > Unfortunately, rust seems to go out of its way to make building hard I don't like rust! It seems very un-UNIXlike. > changed and fails validation). I just hope that its claimed > security advantages are true. I'm concerned. If one watches the console or logs/reads the build, some very scarey things fly by, e.g.: Downloading cc v1.0.4 Downloading libc v0.2.39 Downloading atty v0.2.6 Downloading ar v0.3.1 Downloading curl v0.4.11 Downloading term v0.4.6 Downloading openssl v0.9.23 !!!!! Downloading diff v0.1.11 Downloading hamcrest v0.1.1 Downloading pkg-conf v0.3.9 It's almost enough to put one off using Firefox if that's what it takes! > > I remember that early 60betas needed 3.36, which Bruce had just put > into the book, but later 3.36.1 was needed. The first public beta > of 61 needed 3.37, but I'm sure 3.37.1 is likely to be needed when I > next try a beta. I'll see. I guess I'm ready to try a go at FF60. > > In general, whenever I update a system's firefox to a new release I > always update nspr, nss, sqlite - plus anything else which turns out > to be too old. I like old and stable. Remember the definition: "update: to take out old bugs and put in new ones." It ain't funny!!! > > ĸen -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
