On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 04:23:17PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Starting as a new thread. > > This is a repeat of the proposal: > > The packages in LFS that use separate build directories are out-of-tree. > That is: > > mkdir ../pkg-build > cd ../pkg-build > ../pkg/configure > > If we use in-tree but still separate directories we then have: > > mkdir build > cd build > ../configure > > The affected packages are binutils, gcc (and libstdc++ which is extracted > from gcc), and glibc. > > ============ > > I've thought about the proposal and wanted to make a list of pros and cons. > Please add to the list other things I have not thought of. > > [ trimming the rest to only what I will refer back to ]
> Cons: > > 1. If it's not broken, don't fix it. What we have now works. [...] > Still looking for additional feedback. The Con #1 is strong. The question > is whether the Pro reasons are enough to outweigh it. > > -- Bruce Since many of the main upstream toolchain devs seem to work for fedora, I thought I would try to take a look at their spec files. Started last night with gcc, and got completely lost :-( Taking a fresh look, for glibc they use a nice build() function which creates a directory, cd's to it, and then runs ../configure - that matches the proposal. For both binutils and gcc, I'm still clueless about how they actually run configure. I can see that Con (1.) will probably be regarded as "more pointless churn" by a couple of people who post on the lists and still use older versions of the book, but over time everything can change and the justifications for what we do ought to be reviewed from time to time. This change should help to reduce errors by new builders, and you know that I am in favour of that. So +1. ĸen -- This email was written using 100% recycled letters. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
