On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 22:57 -0600, Archaic wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:47:47PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > > > As a builder, and especially as a BLFS editor, I want to run > > these 3 steps individually, and examine the output of each log > > file. Sure, this is tedious, but I don't care. If make fails > > because I added a dependency that chokes the build, and then > > immediately run make install, I'll get who-knows-what installed > > on the system. > > Don't the &&'s take care of you? I actually do things in a more tedious > fashion, but differently from you. I build and install twice. Once > running each step individually and then pouring over the log output, > then I uninstall it and do a more automated build to get timing and > size. Then I diff the log output. But after that, it's always automated > and the initial logs are kept for comparison even with future versions. > I have to agree w/Randy that the SBUs are a rough approximation and usefull as such. I use a 3rd method by timing configure-make-make install using &&s for processes that usually take 3~5 SBUs and divided by the number in the book to get the value of 1 SBU. Then, when I see 11 SBUs, I know if have time to have a full meail or just a sandwich for lunch.
My $.02 GN aka SeattleGaucho -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
