> It would be useful to know which pages you consider a problem. I've > recently fixed glibc, vim, and am in the process of fixing the one in > flex via an updated patch.
I also accepted a failure in my tar-1.28 fallback, sparse3 IIRC. AIUI it tries to allocate a huge file, but I'm building in a 15GB partition, for the moment. Ch6-8 are done and dusted, boots and runs. > For automake, the process of removing the bad tests is cumbersome, but > we do say: Four tests are known to fail. Personally, I don't find adding that handful of lines to my build scripts at all cumbersome. But, yes, if one is typing it all on the console line... Well, that's why I haven't done that since LFS-4.1! > Would it be sufficient to just name the failing tests? Indeed, that would be most helpful. The check12 fail was what Ken told me that gave me confidence to go on, not throwing it all away! I can't emphasize enough how important it is to have condifence in the reliability of the system we're building. Not knowing which failures have been accepted by the book developers, leaves doubt. I hope you do. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
