On 06/14/2018 05:18 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
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.
What words?
-- Bruce
--
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
