Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Jamie Bennett jamie_bennett at pcpmicro.co.uk
Wed Jan 14 01:09:23 PST 2004


Kevin P. Fleming wrote on 14 January 2004 02:59:
> I think when this change goes into LFS, we should make
> the applying of the coreutils-5.0 patch optional (but
> included by default). In addition, we can wrap the <make>
> commands for packages with scripts known to generate the
> POSIX compliance errors with a <stage> setting
> _POSIX2_VERSION to the correct value so that head/tail
> don't complain. 

...

> Thoughts? Opinions? Is this too radical a departure from
> the book? 

I agree with making the patch default but do we really need
to add the POSIX2_VERSION environment variable to make packages
not complain? If the coreutils maintainers recommend the patch
and the general concensus on the lfs-dev list is that the patch
is to be used then why not just leave it at that.

As Greg Schafer wrote " ... we are not here to save the world 
from Posix stupidity. We are here to get on with our job of 
building LFS." For me the patch is all we need but that is just
MHO.

...
Jamie Bennett	-	jamie at linuxfromscratch dot org



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list