On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:41:46PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > On 06/13/2018 06:42 AM, Hazel Russman wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:11:10 +0100 > > Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I would suggest you continue. > > > > > > ĸen > > That's my preferred solution too, for obvious reasons! But your advice > > puzzles me all the same. If the test results really don't matter, even when > > you get a lot of errors, why does the book emphasise the need to carry out > > these tests for glibc, binutils, gcc and the three gcc libraries? > > > <quote> > > Important: > > In this section, the test suite for Glibc is considered critical. Do not > > skip it under any circumstance. > > </quote> > > > > Because the book targets x86_64 (and to a certain extent x86). On those > systems the number of failures is very few. The tool chain (binutils, > glibc, and gcc) is critical to the rest of the book and undocumented > failures there would cascade throughout the rest of the book. >
Technically, Hazel's machine (Via Nano) *is* x86 (or x86_64), at least according to wikipedia. It just happens to be a slightly unknown quantity to the rest of us. A year ago Hazel had the math failures and two others here - http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2017-January/050742.html Maybe we should reinstate the words in some form. ĸen -- Keyboard not found, Press F1 to continue -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
