On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:34:35 +1300
Simon Geard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 14:55 -0700, Dax Mickelson wrote:
> > It seems we've been so careful to ensure no hashing occurs so far in
> > the build that I'm curious as to why the test 'su-tools nobody
> > -s /bin/bash -c "make RUN_EXPENSIVE_TEST=yes check" doesn't have
> > some sort of '+h' switch too.
> >
> > Obviously I need serious schooling. :-P
>
> Because the point of avoiding hashing is to ensure that when a new
> program is installed into /bin or /usr/bin, it will immediately be
> used in preference to one in /tools/bin. Otherwise, it will remember
> that since 'ls' was '/tools/bin/ls' last time, it should keep using
> that one even though '/bin/ls' has appeared and is higher up the PATH.
>
> In this case, 1) a new shell is being started to run a single command
> before exiting, and 2) nothing is being installed during this step.
> For both reasons, hashing is irrelevant.
>
> Simon.
Simon,
Well spoken! I now understand. Thank you!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
