Am 2019-03-19 08:25, schrieb niuneilneo:
font{ line-height: 1.6; } ul,ol{ padding-left: 20px; list-style-position: inside; }As described in the title, the $LFS/tools setting could be harmful for the current linux distros. Because there already exists /tools folder in current Debian/Ubuntu distros, and it is not possible to correctly set the symlink between the $LFS/tools and /tools.
That may need to be verified if distros really use /tools. If so, a discussion may start on how we handle that. Renaming /tools to another name will be appropriate to come over this issue. That said, a workaraound for you will be to replace EVERY referenve to /tools (either /tools or $LFS/tools) by another name - for example /lfstools and $LFS/lfstools. But you need to be carefull that you really replace EVERY occurance throughout the whole book.
Even if I brutally delete the /tools folder, and set the symlink, the host system will complain that "Too many levels of symbolic links" for simple commands like tar, and all LFS operations following will not be able to execute. I wonder this problem is caused by the dead cycle between the /tools and $LFS/tools. So I suggest totally remove this setting or warn user not to set this variable when some host distros default have /tools in their root folder.
I assume you double-checked that $LFS is set to a non-empty value (set to the mointpoint where your lfs partition is mounted to) from the beginning upto chapter 6.
If $LFS is empty, the symlink in / to tools would point to itself ( /tools --> /tools) which then gives the cyclic reference. Beside that, if $LFS is empty, other errors will occur too, some of them in a more nasty way as the error may occur much later that it has be made and as a result, the binaries created in chapt5 are not usable.
-- Thomas -- 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
