robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun May 8 11:59:29 PDT 2005
On May 8, 2005 09:17 am, Archaic wrote:
> 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.
I deleted m4, bison, and flex from chapter 6. Binutils configure complains a
bit from missing flex. It says flex is only needed if .l files are modified.
But it dies later from missing bison.
More information about the hlfs-dev