> From: Jeremy Huntwork <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 06:05:51 +0000 > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] make --without-guile > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:17 AM Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have to disagree with this. Your way is ideologically pure, but > > difficult to implement. In addition, the advantages are only theoretical. > > What we have now works quite well. It's not broken and I don't want to > > fix something not broken. > > > > It could be argued that since you were obligated to add the switch, the > proof exists that there is a 'broken' environment, at least from the > standpoint of considering all that is already done to try to isolate > chapter 5. > > Difficult to implement? No, not really. It's adding one executable in > chapter 5 to override a possible working pkg-config on the host. > > Difficult to test? Probably. At least, it's certainly more effort. > > But, I agree, it's not a major issue. Just thought I'd mention it as I > noticed it. >
- or (another approach) compile temp-tools statically (like in early lfs vers) ? akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
