On 9/28/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And now that you've hit me with the cluebat and pointed out that we no > longer have any known broken headers, then I completely agree with the > above.
Even if there are broken headers, IMO the correct appoach is to fix them in the offending pacakge rather than relying on gcc-fixincludes to fix them. > 2) In gcc-pass2 and ch6-gcc, we allow the fixincludes process to run. > If it fixes anything we can: i) patch the offending package (if it > really is broken); ii) reintroduce the fixincludes-suppressing patch or > iii) Repeat the "delete the fixincluded headers" commands that we have > in 5.7. > > Obviously i) is unneccesary at present, as we're not aware of any broken > headers. I prefer iii) over ii) simply because it means we have one > less patch to maintain across gcc upgrades (as trivial though such > maintenance may be). > IMO (ii) is preferable over (iii) for the reason I mentioned in my previous e-mail (which will primarily affect BLFS since there is no guarantee when gcc will be installed; in LFS we know that the fixincludes will only fix glibc headers). The patch can be replaced by a sed (this is from memory so may need to be adjusted): sed -i '[EMAIL PROTECTED](SHELL) ./[EMAIL PROTECTED]@g' gcc/fixincludes/Makefile.in -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
