Matthew Burgess wrote: > What I have trouble understanding is the fact that, apparently, one > shouldn't reboot during the ICA cycle. What I thought was trying to be > proved here was that a) any suitable host can build LFS and b) > regardless of the host, the final LFS system should be more-or-less > identical (ignoring timestamps embedded in files, etc.). Therefore my > initial *assumption* would have been to do something along the lines of: > > 1. Build LFS from any suitable host > 2. *Reboot* into that LFS system > 3. Build LFS from the LFS system built from stage 1. > 4. Compare the systems built in step 1 and 3.
I think I agree here. The idea of any sort of comparison is to make sure the system can rebuild itself purely. If some of these settings or variables affect the results of the comparison, then I think they should probably be taken into account, not removed from the equation. Users will be compiling on a *completed* LFS system, *with* all those variables in place. Anyway, just finished a build of the new branch this morning, with *all* tests being run. Going to first look for any failed dependencies, then index the build via Farce. Lastly, I'll build again from the new host and compare results. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
