Robert Connolly wrote:
Is there a reason Binutils pass2 has --disable-nls?
Yes, the same as before: if someone wishes to use HJL binutils, this
avoids the gettext host requirement.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
Hi
The explanation in Ch 5 Binutils Pass1 for --disable-nls says:
This disables internationalization as i18n is not needed for the temporary
tools.
This is misleading because only the Pass1's of Binutils and GCC are passed
`--disable-nls'. For the statement to be accurate, `--disable-nls' would
).
No it was found that glibc would require gettext if binutils was built
with nls. (Of course, that is if my memory isn't too fuzzy.)
3) pass --disable-nls to every pkg in Ch 5 that can handle it.
Not needed, but I personally would support such a move. I use it for my
scripts except when I run my scripts
be clarified. ie: enhanced to explain why only the pass1's
of Binutils and GCC are given `--disable-nls'.
It's a hangover from the days when the Pass1's of Binutils and GCC were
statically linked. (NLS was known to break compilation on some hosts
when linking statically).
No it was found that glibc
--disable-nls. Hmm, OK. That is certainly
good reason to pass '--disable-nls'.
The original point remains. The explanation needs clarification.
How about:
This avoids dependency on gettext being installed on the host. Since we
set LC_ALL=POSIX during the entire chapter 5, NLS would not be used
that Binutils-pass2 also has --disable-nls. Hmm, OK. That is certainly
good reason to pass '--disable-nls'.
This is at least for HJL. Not tested with FSF.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
