My patch won't work

Tushar Teredesai tushar at
Wed Jan 1 07:46:50 PST 2003

Gerard Beekmans wrote:

>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.
I still think a simplistic check + an optional extensive check 
(checklfs) is better:) But like I have always maintain, it is just my 
opinion, you are free to ignore it if you think it is not useful without 
any hard feelings:)

Tushar Teredesai

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