Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Please list your comments as a go or no go.
No go, Jim.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/lex.html
suggests that it's a reasonable expectation for 'lex' to be installed
on a Unix system, hence that's what we'll do. It's not in the LSB,
nor in the FHS, so it depends on how many standards we want to try and
stick to. Like others have said, LFS doesn't try to be minimal, if it
did we could quite easily get rid of the likes of the autotools,
gettext (who needs i18n anyway!) and perl.
Regards,
Matt.
Well Matt, I'm still going to run my tests and report to the group. But
like you said, how many standards are we going to follow? I'm not try to
be minimal, just trying to be smart and prevent issues. I have
successfully compiled a lot of programs without flex. Here is a short
list of what I have done so far.
All these listed below do not use flex
cdparanoia-III-alpha9.8 cdrdao-1.1.9 cdrtools-2.01
atk-1.9.0 expat-1.95.8 freetype-2.1.9 glib-1.2.10 gmp-4.1.4
pango-1.8.0
db-4.3.27 fam-2.7.0 gdbm-1.8.3 glib-2.6.2 gtk+-1.2.10
--
------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
