Fwd: Re: Chapter 5 stability

Archaic archaic at indy.rr.com
Tue Jan 20 16:00:55 PST 2004

----- Forwarded message from Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip.com.au> -----

To: Archaic <archaic at indy.rr.com>
From: Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip.com.au>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:23:44 +1100
Cc: Ryan Oliver <ryan.oliver at pha.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: Re: Chapter 5 stability

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:46:16PM -0500, Archaic wrote:
> I just wanted to hear your opinions of chapter 5 as it relates to
> building the HLFS target. If you had a choice to build software from the
> *finished* chapter 5 tools, or from the chapter6 tools, would there be
> any reason to trust the chapter5 tools less? I'm trying to guage whether
> we can make the assumption of just chapter5 being built, or if we should
> assume a full LFS.

IMHO, Ch 5 can be trusted to build Ch 6. ICA tests consistently prove it.
However, I don't know what your HLFS context is (I'm not on the list).

If you're talking about some of those new fangled techniques where special
patches pervade the toolchain then you'd have to be careful, at least for
the first few pkgs in Ch 6.

----- End forwarded message -----

Well, this opens us up to where we may want to start. We may be able to
just tack on the libselinux related deps to the end of a standard cahp5
and go from there building the patched glibc. What exactly will the
order need to be?


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

- H.L. Mencken

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list