> From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:36:20 -0600 > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS 7.10: 2.2. Host System Requirements: Perl version > OK: module missing > > akhiezer wrote: > >> From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> > >> Kevin Buckley wrote: . . > >>> A bit further into the build, though, I was told that I didn't have the > >>> > >>> Getopt::Std.pm > >>> > >>> module. > >>> > >>> Easy enough to fix and whilst it might be "overkill" for the book, which > >>> probably assumes that folk have a build host that's not as stripped down > >>> as a debootstrapped OS install, it struck me that might be worth adding > >>> in an explicit check for that one Perl module ? > >> > >> The file, AFAICT is /usr/lib/perl5/*/Getopt/Std.pm. > >> > >> Why did you strip that out? This is essentially a library. We don't > >> search for every library that we need and Getopt/Std.pm is part of a > >> standard perl install. > >> > >> I am against adding this to version-check.sh because it is too much of an > >> edge case, but I am open to other opinions. > > > > Can be useful in helping automate host-os requirements: strace'ing a > > build shows - at least in theory - all that is accessed of host-os; > > although strace can o/c interfere with what it's tracing. > > I'm willing to do it if someone can show me a distro where a > apt-get/yum/dnf etc install of perl does not install Getopt::Std.pm. >
Just to be clear: the strace mention, was in case the include-all route was opted for; and isn't a recommendation to go down the route. > In the same vein, I am thinking about removing the library consistency > check because that was a similar one-off problem where the solution tends > to confuse more than it helps. > In light of the new instance, 'Getopt/Std.pm', pointing to the general issue of how much to include in the version-check page: I'd agree broadly that one doesn't want to treat libraries/&c (if at all) in the same way as the other 'main' items in version-check. If they are to be omitted, then maybe a small para/item on the page noting the issue, could be useful; although it too perhaps could 'tend[s] to confuse more than it helps'. Maybe just say something that includes s'thing like, roughly, "[...] most testing with full, and not heavily-modified, installs of the main well-known distros; and less tested with other distros or roll-your-own systems. However, staying with the 'include-all' idea for a moment: might version-check be extendable and generalised to a './configure ...'-style test for what's on the host-os system -vs- what is known to be required. rgds, akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
