Jim Gifford wrote:
We have ran into a issue of it failing on Solaris, that's the reason for
the patch.
Ah, so it's a patch specific to /tools (or cross-lfs equivalent). In
that case, it's obviously fine for cross-lfs, though I'll leave it out
of LFS as it doesn't affect us (at least I know o
We have ran into a issue of it failing on Solaris, that's the reason for
the patch.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See th
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
The question is whether "both" or "none" is the correct answer. AFAIK
there are no hosts in the real world that don't understand "tail -1",
and the new version of coreutils says that disallowing this syntax was a
mistake.
And that's my understanding too. I shoul
Hello,
the patch named binutils-2.16.1-posix-1.patch is currently used in
cross-LFS, but not in the regular LFS. It fixes some calls to "head" and
"tail", for POSIX compliance. It has nothing to do with
cross-compilation techniques and thus has to be present either in
