On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 10:32:26PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-support wrote:
>
> Thank you. It is helpful but it is also a bit hard to follow without the
> /misc/packages and ${KM_SCRIPTS}/functions; but I see they are not
> essential for understanding what you are doing.
>
/misc/packages is a file specifying the hostname (to check that the
hostfile I use is for the right machine), the log name (i.e. the LFS
version), the details for /etc/lfs, and the
packages/versions/patches in LFS.
There are higher-level scripts which run the package scripts, they
define KM_SCRIPTS in relation to themselves - all are in my git
tree. The functions started by doing things like measuring space
and calculating SBUs, then added things like untarring (back in the
day when tar -xf needed to be told if it was a gzip or bz2 tarball),
expansions for compressed patches and patches not using -p1,
handling zipped files. You really don't need to see them to
understand the basics of what I'm doing.
> What's happened to me in the past is when I do the 'make install' the system
> no longer works. but I suppose if it is only a patch to the current version
> then it would probably work.
>
It should work - I had the same misgivings, but I first needed it to
patch glibc for an audio fix, back when building took a long time.
But between increasingly-distant glibc versions too much changes and
a fresh build is often the best approach..
The great thing about glibc and perl is that major changes get
additional tests - that is how I got the perl-5.28 stuff working,
but also why I know that my perl-5.26 attempt is not correct.
>
> > > If anyone is running a production system based on our -dev books, then I
> > > question that decision.
> > >
> >
> > This also applies to our 8.3 *release*. And if anybody is running a
> > production system based on LFS/BLFS (and I have heard of people
> > doing that) they need to make their own decisions about
> > vulnerabilities - for many packages, running with what was in our
> > last release will expose you to known problems. Mostly, a single
> > problem on its own will not pwn you - but as in this case a DOS is
> > possible. For a home user just amusing themself on their own LFS
> > system, a DOS is not usually a big problem.
>
> For our 8,3 release, then the comments should go in the errata. It's not
> very likely that a user of a 8.3 release will look in the -dev book.
Some of us try to encourage that.
>
> I do note that the patch you included only really changes 3 significant
> lines:
> + }
>
> ...
>
> + switch (model)
> + {
>
> Comments, NEWS, and ChangeLog don't affect the build,
>
That part is only the haswell additions. Take a look at the
if_index.c part which is the important part. For the ChangeLog and
NEWS, it was easy-enough to fix up the rejections on this occasion.
ĸen
--
I'm saving up 22 shillings and 10 pence (almost a pound!) per week to
buy an ARM-13.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/11/brexit-means-brexit.html
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
