Jim Gifford wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
For the umpteenth time, `tree' is not needed to run the udev tests.
It's only needed to help diagnose why a particular test has failed,
and therefore is *not* needed as part of /tools or the final LFS system.
I know that Matt, but what if the test fails, how do we diagnose the
issue for support.
In the past, I've just manually looked at the test case, run it by hand
and seen why it failed. The two occasions I've done this with udev, I
managed to establish pretty quickly a) a binary (`test' iirc) was in the
wrong location and b) echo didn't support backslash-escaped octals.
As it is, you are of course free to install `tree' to diagnose similar
faults if you think it'll help you. However, the tests shouldn't fail
for folks following the book (otherwise it's a bug in the book) and as
such I still maintain that `tree' is not required to be part of the book.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
