TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a dicussion.
> I do not propose that you just copy the script - the LFS aims are quite
>different from Greg's - no reason you can't examine them for good ideas
>though.
>
>
With the new build process being worked
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>> However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
>> And I only have i686 boxes :-(
>
>
> This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to.
I bet my skin is tougher than yours!
But, if you don't
> like the length o
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
>>Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
>>mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
>
>
> On-Line System? Wow. I would have
Randy McMurchy wrote:
John Gnew wrote these words on 04/16/05 21:01 CST:
Listed are my timings from a build for LFS 6.1. This box has an AMD
Sempron 3100 processor with 512MB.
gcc-core-3.4.3 439.3 2.8
This particular entry seems almost impossible. This includes the build,
John Gnew wrote these words on 04/16/05 21:01 CST:
> Listed are my timings from a build for LFS 6.1. This box has an AMD
> Sempron 3100 processor with 512MB.
>
> gcc-core-3.4.3 439.3 2.8
This particular entry seems almost impossible. This includes the build,
running the tests, an
Listed are my timings from a build for LFS 6.1. This box has an AMD
Sempron 3100 processor with 512MB.
John
--
Chapter 5
adjust-toolchain 1.1 0.0
bash-3.0
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Yes. Did you ever have to work with decks of mixed 026 and 029 punched
cards? Ugly.
-- Bruce
I can remember actually punching pictures in the cards. Couldn't use
them for much other than to look at.
I actually found a stack of unpunched cards in the closet.
John
--
http:/
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Um. No... there's still the trunk branch
Did I just say 'trunk branch'? Ugh. Someone slap me upside the head
please...
--
Jeremy H.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Original Message
Subject: Re: Some questions to can start my work (long)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:45:37 -0500
From: Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: BLFS Book Maintenance List
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> M.Canales.es wrote th
Original Message
Subject: Re: Some questions to can start my work (long)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:06:31 -0500
From: Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: BLFS Book Maintenance List
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
M.Canales.es wrote:
> This is applicable, IMHO, to this two issu
Jeremy Utley wrote:
And the simple
fact is, GCC 4.0 is not quite yet ready for integration into the LFS
book - it probably won't be until 4.0.3 or thereabouts.
But still, it would be nice to have a crack at chewing on the bugs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://ww
Jeremy Utley wrote:
But there's still the lengthy community decision process to deal with
before it makes it into rendered XML. That was the whole crux of the
Unstable branch of LFS, so those of us who were interested in playing
with that stuff could do so easily. Now that's gone :( And the s
John Gnew wrote:
> Punch cards, dropping the unnumbered decks, attempting to read cards
> that had not been interpreted... Never been there. :)
Yes. Did you ever have to work with decks of mixed 026 and 029 punched
cards? Ugly.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-d
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
On-Line System? Wow. I would have given a lot fo
Original Message
Subject: Some questions to can start my work (long)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:51:24 +0200
From: M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: BLFS Book Maintenance List
Organization: Poder para Tux !!!
To: blfs-book@linuxfromscratch.org
Hi.
I would start my work
Dennis J Perkins wrote these words on 04/16/05 18:15 CST:
> I've been compiling some new versions of Gnome 2.10 packages and a few
> of them are looking for hal and dbus. I can turn off hal in most cases,
> but gnome-volume-manager appears to require hal.
>
> I have found and compiled hal and dbu
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/16/05 18:31 CST:
[snip]
Sorry, all, this was intended for blfs-dev and I didn't look close
enough at my cc: field before I sent it.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linu
Dennis J Perkins wrote these words on 04/16/05 18:15 CST:
> I've been compiling some new versions of Gnome 2.10 packages and a few
> of them are looking for hal and dbus. I can turn off hal in most cases,
> but gnome-volume-manager appears to require hal.
>
> I have found and compiled hal and dbu
Matthew Burgess wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
And I only have i686 boxes :-(
This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to. But, if you
don't like the length of time it takes to get new technology into LFS
then post
TheOldFellow wrote:
However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
And I only have i686 boxes :-(
This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to. But, if you don't
like the length of time it takes to get new technology into LFS then
post *patches* to the XML bo
TheOldFellow wrote:
> Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
> Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
> mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
On-Line System? Wow. I would have given a lot for that capability i
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>>
>> Fair comment. My earlier posts in LFS-Support in reply to an OP who was
>> interested in gcc-4 had the links in. But thanks for repeating them.
>> I'm attempting to stimulate some interest in moving LFS forwards.
>>
>>
> It won't be long before
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote these words on 04/16/05 14:12 CST:
>
>
>>I had no difficulty building a reasonably stable gcc-4/glibc-2.3.5
>>system that carried BLFS with just a few patches all the way up to a
>>gnome build (with a few oddities in gnome, I admit, but that's usual
>>wi
TheOldFellow wrote these words on 04/16/05 14:12 CST:
> I had no difficulty building a reasonably stable gcc-4/glibc-2.3.5
> system that carried BLFS with just a few patches all the way up to a
> gnome build (with a few oddities in gnome, I admit, but that's usual
> with my gnome builds) plus the
TheOldFellow wrote:
Fair comment. My earlier posts in LFS-Support in reply to an OP who was
interested in gcc-4 had the links in. But thanks for repeating them.
I'm attempting to stimulate some interest in moving LFS forwards.
It won't be long before LFS is far beyond Greg's build process. Gr
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Once I'm done with the remaining 6.1 issues I'll set up a branch for
> this so we can get this dealt with. I still don't think there's any
> particular rush though, seeing as though they've still got an RC2 to
> release, then the real release, and getting upstream devs
Andrew Fyfe wrote:
> If your going to reference Greg's work at least include a link to the
> full documentation (http://www.diy-linux.org/x86-reference-build/), it
> includes comments explaining the reasons for the various choices Greg
> has made for doing things certain ways. He also has a page on
Joel Miller wrote:
sed -i.bak \
-e 's,\./fixinc\.sh,-c true,' \
-e '/^LIBGCC2_DEBUG/d' gcc/Makefile.in
Then again, the above sed looks more like the fixincludes patch as I
think it prevents the fixincludes process from running.
Greg chose to replace the simple patches like the fixincludes
If your going to reference Greg's work at least include a link to the
full documentation (http://www.diy-linux.org/x86-reference-build/), it
includes comments explaining the reasons for the various choices Greg
has made for doing things certain ways. He also has a page on the web
site (http://w
Joel Miller wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
A bit of a disclaimer before I try to pick apart this script a little.
Personally, I think you've looked at the script at far too low a level.
The book will continue to advocate not setting CFLAGS, or any other
such environment changes unless it is *absolu
TheOldFellow wrote:
A bit of a disclaimer before I try to pick apart this script a little.
All internal politics discussions aside, I greatly respect Greg's
technical prowess, and my trying to make changes to a script by some one
who knows a lot more than me will probably break things. That sai
Andrew Benton wrote:
But hotplug is included and installed in the book so that passage should
probably be re-worded?
Thanks Andrew, I think it's more accurate now. Let me know if you think
it needs altering though.
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.li
I think it might be time to get ready for the imminent release of gcc-4.
The key thing that needs to be fixed in the (unstable) book is the
management of gcc's specs.
I've learnt quite a bit about this from Greg Shafer's scripts, and
attached you'll find a somewhat LFS-ised set of instructions wi
Allard Welter wrote:
Section 7.4, last sentence (grammar and spelling):
in negligable -> is negligible
Thanks.
Section 7.4.1, second paragraph (tense):
Last two sentences should be past tense again (from: The devfs file
system also suffers from race ...) unless of course these problems are
still
Peter Ennis wrote:
Thanks Peter, fixed up in r4973 (trunk) and r4974 (6.1)
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Can anyone else validate this problem? It looks like a autoconf version
>> issue to me, but I'm not really that familiar with autoconf.
>>
> This came up in BLFS support a couple of months ago, see
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-support
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I suppose that would be fine, though I still would like to see a brief
summary about it.
Oh, and by summary, I really just mean the purpose of the cd - what it
does and why it exists. Just to give the users a reason for coming to
look at the cd and its independant page in
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Is it possible to simply point interested folks to a web page that can
be updated independently of the book?
Since you're obviously up and around, I'll make a reply now ;)
I suppose that would be fine, though I still would like to see a brief
summary about it. Perhaps it d
Andrew Benton wrote:
Hello people,
On
http://lfs.securewebservices.co.uk/lfs/view/development/chapter01/chapter01.html#ch-scatter-how
it says
Chapter 5 also shows the user how to build a first pass of the
toolchain, including Binutils and GCC (first pass basically means these
two core packages
Andrew Benton wrote:
But
http://lfs.securewebservices.co.uk/lfs/view/development/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html
seems to build binutils dynamically linked?
Thanks for catching that, Andrew. I changed the pass 1 toolchain to a
dynamic build to work around problems caused by hosts with a libc.a th
Hello people,
On
http://lfs.securewebservices.co.uk/lfs/view/development/chapter01/chapter01.html#ch-scatter-how
it says
Chapter 5 also shows the user how to build a first pass of the toolchain, including
Binutils and GCC (first pass basically means these two core packages will be
re-installed
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hey Guys,
Would just like to ask if the target date for the release of 6.1 has
changed at all.
I think it will have to, given the occasional problems people are seeing
with the localnet bootscript, and the fact that I've a fairly lengthy
TODO list still to get through. I'
42 matches
Mail list logo
