On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 11:12 AM Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Debian Testing didn't have it last time I tried. OP, what version of Debian and/or Ubuntu did you use to find this? We need to verify for ourselves. The only purpose I can think of for Debian to use /tools is to hide a recovery system that can be used in the event of a failed update.
-- 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
