Archaic archaic at
Sun May 8 06:17:05 PDT 2005

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:16:24AM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> FSF binutils-2.16 looks like its alright, at least for x86. I assume we can 
> switch to this? The patches are no problem, the uclibc one is already made, 
> the pt_pax one only has 1 rejected hunk, and its a comment :) I'm not 
> positive but I don't think this version of binutils depends on m4, bison, and 
> flex, in chapter 5.

I've seen both good and bad reports. I haven't gotten around to trying
an HLFS build with it. I know flex isn't needed, I would imagine m4 and
bison also are not.


Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list