Greg Schafer wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > >> We can simplify the sed expression and get rid of the note entirely if we >> change it to: >> >> -e 's@/tools@@g' >> >> Anyone have any objections to this change? > > I'd just like to make the following points: > > 1. You're introducing a distinct lack of clarity about what is actually > being performed. > > 2. The dynamic linker issue is such a critical aspect in the whole process > that it warrants highlighting.
I appreciate those concerns, and a concise explanation about what is happening should still be highlighted textually. My motives for the change are that it simplifies the command and it will work for all cases, so there would be no need to say 'use a different linker name if your platform requires it'. I always thought that was kind of an unfitting warning anyway for a book that claims to support only x86. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
