On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:11:53 -0600, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathan Coulson wrote:
>
> >
> > I tried to make our functions file LSB compliant, but I left a few
> > things in to avoid troubles with our bootscripts. [LSB mentions
> > start_daemon, we have loadproc. loadproc/killproc c
Nathan Coulson wrote:
>
> I tried to make our functions file LSB compliant, but I left a few
> things in to avoid troubles with our bootscripts. [LSB mentions
> start_daemon, we have loadproc. loadproc/killproc call
> evaluate_retval at the end, and we still check for PIDFILE (But we
> have the
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:26:02 -0700, Archaic wrote:
> With 2.6.11.x I have been getting test failures in both chapter5 and
> chapter6 glibc. Here's the scenario:
>
> Build 20050318 from a highly modified 5.1.1 host (though toolchain is the
> same) with a 2.6.11.x kernel and chapter5 glibc test bom
I get exactly the same thing. I found this link btw:
http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2005-March.txt
Which points to:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2005-02/msg00041.html
The patch on that page doesn't make any difference. I suggest ignoring it for
now. Maybe someone els
Andrew Benton wrote:
tst-cancel17.out looks like this
going to cancel tf in-time
going to cancel tf2 in-time
in-time cancellation succeeded
aio_cancel failed
going to cancel tf early
tf cleanup handler not called
I've been seeing these too since early 2.6.11-bk kernels I've been
building with. Som
Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
PS: fdisk confused becouse it want align partition on the cylinder
boundary. Why? I haven't answer...
It does that because DOS and Windows do it, and if fdisk made partitions
that didn't align to cylinder boundaries on a disk shared between Linux
and DOS/Windows things wou
Archaic wrote:
Stupid me started a fresh build after rebooting so I lost the check.log
but it was failing on tst_cancel17 or some such. This is just a heads
up. If I can reproduce it again, I will save the error msg.
Let me help
GCONV_PATH=/sources/glibc-build/iconvdata LC_ALL=C
/sources/glibc-bui
Archaic wrote:
As of the render on 20050318, the patches page still referenced the old
2.6.10 security patch.
Thanks, fixed now...hopefully.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
On March 18, 2005 03:37 pm, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
traceroute and ping results for the following two IP addresses:
current server: 216.171.238.83
new server: 72.29.236.37
Thanks for all the results so far. Everybody is showing less hops and lower
ping times to the new server
With 2.6.11.x I have been getting test failures in both chapter5 and
chapter6 glibc. Here's the scenario:
Build 20050318 from a highly modified 5.1.1 host (though toolchain is
the same) with a 2.6.11.x kernel and chapter5 glibc test bombs. Reboot
into the same host with a 2.6.10 kernel and it work
As of the render on 20050318, the patches page still referenced the old
2.6.10 security patch.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
F
Tyler Packer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[/dev/null]
> {s,c,}fdisk -l /dev/hda says:
> /dev/hda 82220544 bytes, 82MB, 16 heads, 63 sectors, 159 Cylendars
>
> This is BAD! It appears that the disk utils are using the (incorrectly
> reported) physical geometry instead of the logical. I know I
On March 18, 2005 03:37 pm, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> traceroute and ping results for the following two IP addresses:
> current server: 216.171.238.83
> new server: 72.29.236.37
Thanks for all the results so far. Everybody is showing less hops and lower
ping times to the new server, both Contine
13 matches
Mail list logo
