On 1/16/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > >> On 1/16/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> libhistory.so.5 (symlink, points to .old after in-place rebuild) > >>> libreadline.so.5 (ditto) > >> > >> Shouldn't the link point to the .so.5 library? > > > > Yes, it should, and it does. > > I was wrong in retracting, my LFS-svn results definitely show this for > all builds after the first. I can't yet see why the symlink is moving > (and I've spent twenty minutes looking at readline's shlib/Makefile and > support/shlib-install).
Seems to me like this whole issue with the .old libraries for readline should just be eliminated. It's the only package that does this. DIY has sed -i.bak '/MV.*old/d' Makefile > Meanwhile, I've realised that some of the difference between > 'identical' and 'allowable' files might be down to those which hard-code > the date-compiled (but not the time) - on the same day, these have a > chance of being identical, on any other day they can at best be > 'acceptable' (after converting the date to a token). Obviously, the way > to get more-reproducable figures for how many become identical on a > subsequent build is to only do one build per calendar day (otherwise, > I'll have to explain why even after three builds, the number of > identical files is still increasing). I think you might be right here. There may be some other oddness with the date/time stamps. Trying to hunt down e2fsck problems was a real pain because sometimes the test would return that the two binaries were identical, sometimes acceptable, and sometimes totally failing. And I'm 99% positive that I identified the only differences to be embedded time stamps. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
