jhalfs HLFS Paco patch
Tor Olav Stava
t-ol-sta at online.no
Fri Mar 17 01:17:48 PST 2006
Dan Nicholson wrote:
>On 3/16/06, Tor Olav Stava <t-ol-sta at online.no> wrote:
>>+ # UGLY, but will avoid using Paco up to linux-libc-headers
>I don't know if you considered this. In my scripts, I install paco at
>the end of the /tools stage (Ch. 5). Then I add
>/usr/lib/libpaco-log.so -> /tools/lib/libpaco-log.so to Creating
>Essential Symlinks and let the paco binary be found through the PATH.
>Then I can start using it immediately in the final system, without
>altering what LD_PRELOAD gets set to at any point. I then reinstall
>paco at the end of the final system.
>Just a thought.
I did actually consider it, but it won't help me get rid of that "ugly"
if statement. I need to avoid the first few scripts in chapter06, as
some of them won't create any log for Paco, and thus it will fail trying
to parse a nonexistent logfile.
My reason for installing in beginning of Ch06, was that I didn't want to
install Paco twice as it seemed unnecessary. You do have a very good
point, though, because installing Paco before adjusting the toolchain in
ch06 will make it link against /tools, and won't work after the /tools
dir is removed.
Thanks for your thought.
It seems I have to do it the way you suggest. Under any circumstance I
can't avoid installing Paco twice. It still needs to be reinstalled
after the toolchain have been readjusted in Ch06 to make it work on the
So I'm back for another hack ;)
That's why I appreciate feedback. I probably wouldn't have noticed that
until I'd removed the /tools dir and tried to log packages from BLFS.
More information about the alfs-discuss