Hi Pierre,
thank you for your reply
Am 24.03.21 um 14:37 schrieb Pierre Labastie:
The `cp' command copies "include" and all its subdirs to $LFS/usr. So
they land
where they are expected to land.
Ah, I see my error, I did not create the directories as stated in
chapter 4.2. In this chapter it is stated, that these directories are
important to be there for chapter 6 and chapter 8, that they are now
needed for chapter 5 as well is never mentioned, and frankly, I didn't
expect that from my former experience.
There should be $LFS/lib64 and $LFS/lib at this stage (they were created in
chapter 4).
Yes, see above :-). But the source for the symlink is not available yet.
So you create a symlink to a file that will be created (hopefully) later
.... why do you do that ?
rationale for the new build is that maintaining a {$LFS,}/tools directory
isolated from the host during chapter 5, and then preventing the packages in
chapter 6 from using libraries in /tools was becoming more and more complex.
I know what you mean, I struggled with this myself a few times in the past.
It is much easier to use the standard tools of cross compilation (where
isolation is built in), now that almost all packages behave correctly when cross
compiling. Of course, that creates other problems, especially for package
management, because packages in chapter 8 overwrite those built in the preceding
chapters. But it has been thought that the maintainability is easier in that
case.
Pierre
So, well .... I can live with it, although it breaks "my" packing system
as well, since I build up my "real" system from an isolated toolchain in
$LFS/tools from Chapter 8 on and my packaging system doesn't expect to
find any files or directories in $LFS apart from $LFS/src and $LFS/tools
:-).
Thanks for the help .... building the directory structure like explained
in chapter 4.2 solves all of my problems.
bye, Patrick
--
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
