Tushar Teredesai wrote:
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).
I just worry that by habitually preventing fixincludes from running we may end up avoiding being alerted to the fact that we may have a broken header somewhere. Having said that, that's been the status quo so far, and hasn't bitten us yet...
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
Ah, that looks handy. I'll test it out alongside the gcc-4.0.2 upgrade. Many thanks!
Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
