Suggestion re environment variables
pann at ourmanpann.com
Sat Mar 16 09:44:05 PST 2002
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 12:14, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 09:11:09AM -0800, Rod Roark wrote:
> > In the LFS 3.2 instructions for "patch" we see:
> > export CPPFLAGS=-D_GNU_SOURCE &&
> > ./configure --prefix=/usr &&
> > unset CPPFLAGS &&
> > Does anyone see a reason not to do this instead:
> > CPPFLAGS=-D_GNU_SOURCE ./configure --prefix=/usr &&
> The reason is to be compatible with old systems. This construction doesn't
> work properly on old bash'es. I think I had problems with this on a very
> old system like Redhat 5.x
> There's an item in Bugzilla to re-check these things and see if it's still
> needed. I don't think there are may people anymore who use a Glibc-2.0
> system with a bash-1.x version.
> So, this may just be changed around in a few weeks.
Let me toss in a little food for thought here. You've obviously decided
upon bash as your shell of choice. Your prerogative, it's your system,
that being the beauty of LFS. I'm perfectly happy to build LFS using
bash, but once it's built would like to have /bin/sh linked to a small
statically-linked shell. I prefer ash.
FWIW, I ran the init scripts (1.6?) against ash and found them full of
bash-isms. I'm not much of a shell programmer, but I was able to get my
LFS 3.2rc1 system to boot happily with /bin/sh linked to ash.
As an aside, I'd like to get to the point where I can actually build ash
linked against dietlibc on my LFS system. Not there yet. Anyone who has
done so, or is interested in a mini-project to do so, please contact me.
geek by nature, Linux by choice L I N U X .~.
The Choice /V\
http://www.ourmanpann.com/linux/ of a GNU /( )\
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-support