On September 8, 2016 6:31:09 AM CDT, [email protected] wrote:
> > >The patch appears to not address fully standards-conformance >(fhs/lsb/&c): should it? Yes, for items not already covered in BLFS, it should. Also, while this side steps the libtool archive issue, and the symlink issue for people building distributions from LFS, the important thing, as always, is the educational goal. Specifically, we only modify the three files necessary to adjust the default lib path, and don't depend on the unnecessary symlink. This actually still does a bit more than is necessary (accounting for libc!=glibc), but could be further trimmed and explanation updated if desired. Also, I do plan to revisit removal of the libtool archives as well. Slow incremental changes. Need to see if anybody has objection before proceeding further. Would you be so kind as to clue me in on remaining standards conformance issues? --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
