My patch won't work

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 1 07:33:14 PST 2003


On January 1, 2003 08:28 am, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Even if checklfs is included in the book, the above check could work as
> a simplistic check. If someone runs into a problem, they can then go for
> extensive checks using checklfs.
>
> <salesPitch>It will also increase the educational value of the book,
> show the power of some commands.</salesPitch>

Yes, but it would defeat the purpose of checklfs in the book then. Checking 
for statically linked isn't the biggest reason for checklfs, actually 
checking to make sure you got all files in the right place (it would expose 
typo's made in --prefix and things like that) too which would cut down on a 
lot of problems like "I get no such file or dir and i don't know why, 
everything installed properly".

How about this. When we explain the purpose of checklfs that it checks to make 
sure it's statically linked we can add a line such as "In essense it runs 
find $LFS/static/bin -exec file '{}' ';' and greps the output to make sure it 
contains the string telling us it's statically linked as opposed to 
dynamically linked".

This way they're exposed to the 'power' of find, file and grep. As well as 
getting down to the basics of the script without looking at all the code and 
getting lost in the bash-ism's.

How's that?

-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
-- 
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 mailing list