On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:25:45PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
>
>> It does look like there will be some problems with Xorg and detecting
>> input devices. I spent a few minuted digging around...and I have no
>> leads on where Xorg ties into udev
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:25:45PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
> It does look like there will be some problems with Xorg and detecting
> input devices. I spent a few minuted digging around...and I have no
> leads on where Xorg ties into udev or hotplug. Heading to sleep for
> the night. This is getti
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> There's another thread for complaining about the brokenness of the
> proposed udev implementation. This one is for doing something about it.
> After reading the udev-complaints thread, I joined the busybox list, and
> asked if busybox's simp
There's another thread for complaining about the brokenness of the
proposed udev implementation. This one is for doing something about it.
After reading the udev-complaints thread, I joined the busybox list, and
asked if busybox's simple mdev feature could replace udev. See thread
http://thread
On Wednesday 28 March 2007 23:01, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Mick wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 March 2007 07:53, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > you'll normally want to generate your errors in the "C" locale
> > > before posting them here or in bugzilla.
> >
> > Hmm, out of curiosity, how do you
Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 March 2007 07:53, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > you'll normally want to generate your errors in the "C" locale
> > before posting them here or in bugzilla.
>
> Hmm, out of curiosity, how do you go about doing that?
By preceding the relevant command with LC_ALL=C.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Mick wrote:
> Hmm, out of curiosity, how do you go about doing that?
By setting the different LC_ and LANG environment variables one can achieve
different levels of
internationalization.
- --
Arturo "Buanzo" Busleiman - Consultor Independiente en
On Wednesday 28 March 2007 07:53, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > make[1]: *** [archival/built-in.o] Ошибка 127
> > make: *** [archival] Ошибка 2
> > make: *** Ожидание завершения заданий...
> > make[1]: *** [applets/busybox.o] Ошибка 127
> > make[1]: *** Ожидание завершения заданий...
> > make:
2007/3/28, Etaoin Shrdlu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wednesday 28 March 2007 10:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello there once again, I recompiled gcc and switched to
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1
>
> but this is not solved the problem, I'm still having the same error
> while building busybox:
>[cut]
>
On Wednesday 28 March 2007 10:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello there once again, I recompiled gcc and switched to
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1
>
> but this is not solved the problem, I'm still having the same error
> while building busybox:
>[cut]
> LD archival/built-in.o
> /bin/sh: i686-p
2007/3/28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/3/28, Vladimir Rusinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On 3/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2007/3/28, Vladimir Rusinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> >
> > > (Show me `gcc-config -l`)
> > >
> > Here we go:
> > # gcc-config -l
> >
2007/3/28, Vladimir Rusinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 3/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/3/28, Vladimir Rusinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
>
> > (Show me `gcc-config -l`)
> >
> Here we go:
> # gcc-config -l
> [1] i386-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1 *
>
Hmm, this must be i686, not i 386.
On 3/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/3/28, Vladimir Rusinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (Show me `gcc-config -l`)
>
Here we go:
# gcc-config -l
[1] i386-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1 *
Hmm, this must be i686, not i386.
Have you ever change CHOST in /etc/make.conf ?
--
WBR, Vladimir
2007/3/28, Vladimir Rusinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 3/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /bin/sh: i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: command not found
> CC applets/busybox.o
> /bin/sh: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: command not found
>
Seems like you have updated gcc, pruned old version a
On 3/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
/bin/sh: i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: command not found
CC applets/busybox.o
/bin/sh: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: command not found
Seems like you have updated gcc, pruned old version and not used gcc-config.
(Show me `gcc-config -l`)
--
On Wednesday 28 March 2007, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about '[gentoo-user] Busybox update fail':
> I'm truing to update my Gentoo box, ut its failed on busybox.
>
> My info
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86"
> CBUILD="i686-pc-l
Hello list!
I'm truing to update my Gentoo box, ut its failed on busybox. So what I have:
My info
# emerge --info
Portage 2.1.2.2 (default-linux/x86/no-nptl, gcc-4.1.1, glibc-2.5-r0,
2.6.19-gentoo-r5-work i686)
=
System uname: 2.6.1
* On Tue Jun-07-2005 at 08:34:32 AM -0300, Norberto Bensa said:
[...]
> What is not mentioned is the motivation to replace sash with busybox. So my
> question is: why?
On 2005-06-04 14:12:21 GMT Jason Stubbs wrote:
> I believe it's been added to system in place of sash. It's similarly
> very smal
Norberto Bensa wrote:
>
> What is not mentioned is the motivation to replace
sash
> with busybox. So my question is: why?
I don't know about sash but busybox is very very cool.
It's a complete userland in one executable! Check it
out: http://busybox.net
Zac
Peter Gaži wrote:
> busybox replaced sash in the profile, there was a thread on it a few
> days ago, check the archives... after you emerge busybox, emerge
> --depclean will unmerge sash.
What is not mentioned is the motivation to replace sash with busybox. So my
question is: why?
Thanks
--
Nor
busybox replaced sash in the profile, there was a thread on it a few
days ago, check the archives... after you emerge busybox, emerge
--depclean will unmerge sash.
HTH
Peter
On 6/7/05, Devon Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just did an 'emerge sync' and now 'emerge -pDuv world' wants to ins
I just did an 'emerge sync' and now 'emerge -pDuv world' wants to
install busybox. I've only seen busybox used in small/embedded systems,
of which this machine is neither. Nothing installed depends on it. So,
why does portage insist I need it?
dcm
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:17, Zac Medico wrote:
> --- Bogo Mipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > e2fsprogs/Makefile
> > make[1]: *** No rule to make target `.config`,
> > needed by `include/config.h`.
> > Stop
>
> I'm guessing that maybe you are using USE=savedconfig
> improperly which requires you to
--- Bogo Mipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> e2fsprogs/Makefile
> make[1]: *** No rule to make target `.config`,
> needed by `include/config.h`.
> Stop
I'm guessing that maybe you are using USE=savedconfig
improperly which requires you to provide your own
.config? Look in the ebuild:
if use s
Hi Guys
Real stupid question I know. Undoubtedly very simple answer. Searches reveal
nothing. So why only me? I've tried all available Busybox versions under
Portage. All give same error.
sys-apps/busybox-1.00-r4 failed.
d=`dirname e2fsprogs/Makefile`; [ -d "$d" ] || mkdir -p "$d";
cp /usr
25 matches
Mail list logo
