it's very strange..

John Nielsen da02043 at
Fri Oct 25 13:13:45 PDT 2002

On Friday 25 October 2002 09:53 pm, you wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:48:59 +0200 Matthias Benkmann
> <matthias at> wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:39:17 +0200 John Nielsen
> >
> > <da02043 at> wrote:
> > >  why not just do a for f in * ; do
> >
> > I like to keep patching to a minimum, but this is just a matter of
> > taste. Patching all programs will work just fine.
> That should be "should work just fine". I believe patching binutils and
> gcc should be avoided. We don't want "LD_LIBERRY_PATH" to end up hardcoded
> somewhere in our new binaries instead of "LD_LIBRARY_PATH". If you patch
> all programs, could you do a find -exec grep LD_LIBERRY_PATH over the
> whole disk (be sure to exclude /proc from the scan!!!) to see if it leaves
> any traces once your system is complete.

Ugh i dont know. My LFS is nuked right now, so i cant check. I can however say 
that i deleted /static, the libs i copied from the donor distro and i removed 
the LD_LIBERRY_PATH variable and everything has worked perfectly so far 
except for lftp, grub and the kernel but the outout said nothing about 
LD_LIBERRY_PATH, so even if its not a given, i asume its not the problem. 
That is most likely caused by the gcc-cvs i use. I deleted /static half way 
through the LFS build (non standart build order) and used the potentially 
LD_LIBERRY_PATH tainted ch6 gcc for the last half of LFS. It installs a bunch 
of other packages as well without problems except for lftp, grub and the 
kernel. I havent tried a complete rebuild though.

I go on vacation tomorrow, so i cant chek before i come home in a week and a 
half, but i think it is safe to carpet bomb /static/bin with the 

John Nielsen
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-support mailing list