Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 04:23:17PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Starting as a new thread.
This is a repeat of the proposal:
The packages in LFS that use separate build directories are out-of-tree.
That is:
mkdir ../pkg-build
cd ../pkg-build
../pkg/configure
If we use in-tree but still separate directories we then have:
mkdir build
cd build
../configure
The affected packages are binutils, gcc (and libstdc++ which is extracted
from gcc), and glibc.
============
I've thought about the proposal and wanted to make a list of pros and cons.
Please add to the list other things I have not thought of.
[ trimming the rest to only what I will refer back to ]
Cons:
1. If it's not broken, don't fix it. What we have now works.
[...]
Still looking for additional feedback. The Con #1 is strong. The question
is whether the Pro reasons are enough to outweigh it.
-- Bruce
Since many of the main upstream toolchain devs seem to work for
fedora, I thought I would try to take a look at their spec files.
Started last night with gcc, and got completely lost :-(
Taking a fresh look, for glibc they use a nice build() function
which creates a directory, cd's to it, and then runs ../configure -
that matches the proposal.
For both binutils and gcc, I'm still clueless about how they actually
run configure.
I can see that Con (1.) will probably be regarded as "more pointless
churn" by a couple of people who post on the lists and still use
older versions of the book, but over time everything can change and
the justifications for what we do ought to be reviewed from time to
time.
This change should help to reduce errors by new builders, and you
know that I am in favour of that. So +1.
Thanks for that input Ken. I'm really on the edge, but, at least today,
leaning toward making the change.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
