compiler skewed?

Declan Moriarty junk_mail at
Mon Jan 9 08:17:34 PST 2006

Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:12:09 +0000
> Declan Moriarty <junk_mail at> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry for slow reply, only returning from a battle with death over
> > some loathsome flu here. I'm on glibc these days. I started on
> > uClibc, but couldn't get past gcc in Ch 6. - the one that really
> > has to work. So I went with the ALFS profile, which was glibc.
> > 
> > 
> Wow, you got me here then.  Well, it does sound like you somewhere at
> least from you recent Xorg post.  Sorry I am behind as well, I will
> make those X scripts as soon as I can and submit them. If I feel like
> doing anything more advanced with them I may choose tcl over perl. (as
> long as you have the default toolchain it should still work as tcl
> comes with it, so there is no worries over whether or not tcl is
> popular enough for such a script.)

As I understand it, 6.9 builds X according to all the .def files.
7.0 is modular. The only difference between them I have discovered
is that some deprecated postscript reader has been shipped (but is
not built) in 6.9 whereas it isn't shipped in 7.0.

The real benefit of your scripts will be to build a modular X -
i.e leaving chunks out and just having what you want. The next
version of 7.1 might just have 5 packages or so. So surely for
'from scratch' builds, a full release would be better.

BTW, X11R7 was a _dreadful_ idea as an installation location.
You'd be amazed how many things have X11R6 coded in.


	With best Regards,

	Declan Moriarty.

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list