On May 8, 2005 09:17 am, Archaic wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:16:24AM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote: > > FSF binutils-2.16 looks like its alright, at least for x86. I assume we > > can switch to this? The patches are no problem, the uclibc one is already > > made, the pt_pax one only has 1 rejected hunk, and its a comment :) I'm > > not positive but I don't think this version of binutils depends on m4, > > bison, and flex, in chapter 5. > > I've seen both good and bad reports. I haven't gotten around to trying > an HLFS build with it. I know flex isn't needed, I would imagine m4 and > bison also are not.
I deleted m4, bison, and flex from chapter 6. Binutils configure complains a bit from missing flex. It says flex is only needed if .l files are modified. But it dies later from missing bison. robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
