/static patches and a 4.0 typo
sfk1 at bigfoot.com
Fri Oct 25 01:30:55 PDT 2002
* "Eric Miller" <emiller at techskills.com> wrote:
> I notice that some of the /static installs don't require a patch even though
> there is a patch available:
> Sh-utils (only applies one patch, not the hostname patch)
> Is this okay? I am assuming that this is just the bare minimum needed to
> chroot, and the chapter 6 installs will incorporate them.
Your assumption is correct:
| Many of our packages must be patched before they can be compiled. We
| only apply patches when and where they are needed. So, don't fret if
| it seems like instructions for a patch are missing.
> Also, the GCC /static section in Chpt. 5 is mis-worded. It says that it
> "..requires its patch....make sure its unpacked.."
> GCC has two patches!
> It should read "...requires two patches be applied....make sure they are
> both unpacked....".
True. Maybe one of the editors could change this?
Oh, and next time you want to start a new thread please don't reply to
an existing one. Thanks!
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