Loading...

lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org

[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: [lfs-dev] test on LFS 7.1-rc1: ICA + suggestion Andrew Benton Tue Feb 21 13:01:49 2012

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:47:00 +0100
Pierre Labastie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have done a test of LFS-7.1-rc1. ICA went OK, except the
> already reported problem with ld.so.cache (ldconfig still missing
> somewhere), which is not a big issue. In case somebody else
> does ICA, there is this difference in etip.h between ICA
> iterations 1 and 2:
> -----------------------------------
> --- iteration-1/usr/include/etip.h      2012-02-20 10:38:14.000000000 +0100
> +++ iteration-2/usr/include/etip.h      2012-02-20 11:35:57.000000000 +0100
> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@
>   #endif
> 
>   #ifndef ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_H
> -#define ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_H 0
> +#define ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_H 1
>   #endif
> 
>   #ifndef ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_EXCEPTION
> -----------------------------------
> It seems to be due to a bug in ncurses' configure: see the
> thread starting at:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ncurses/2012-02/msg00003.html

My last message was wrong. I get the same results on i686 and x86_64.
If ncurses is already installed and I don't apply your patch I get:
#define ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_H 1
If ncurses is already installed and I apply your patch I get:
#define ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_H 0
If ncurses is not installed you patch makes no difference, I still get:
#define ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_H 0

Could it be that ETIP_NEEDS_MATH_H 0 (the current situation) is the
correct result and the result you get when reinstalling ncurses is the
wrong one?

Andy
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page