On 3/19/19 2:25 AM, niuneilneo wrote:
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. 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.
We need to verify this. What specific version of Debian has /tools?
LFS has used /tools for almost 20 years. I think it is unlikely that
Debian started to use it.
Changing /tools would be *very* invasive. I counted 86 files, including
several in the stylesheets that match /tools. Not all of these matches
refer to our /tools.
-- 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
