...
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../include -I../include -g -O2 -MT conf.lo -MD
-MP
-MF .deps/conf.make[2]: Leaving directory `/src/alsa-lib-1.0.8/src/alisp'
make[2]: Entering directory `/src/alsa-lib-1.0.8/src'
if /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.
-I../include -I.
Jim Gifford wrote:
Please list your comments as a go or no go.
No go, Jim.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/lex.html
suggests that it's a reasonable expectation for 'lex' to be installed on
a Unix system, hence that's what we'll do. It's not in the LSB, nor in
the F
Why doesnt someone do something sensible and mount devfs to /.devfs and
symlink all the links across, the devfs might be sorted but its a huge mess!
Folders upon folders and I thought my level of organisation was bad.
Bring back the old devices style.
But seriously, why dont we just mount the
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
The obvious answer (for me anyway) to "how do I parse a config file" is
"use flex and bison to build a grammar".
And the obvious answer to me (being a C++ kinda guy) is to use 'Spirit'
from the boost libraries (http://www.boost.org/) :)
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
But Jim, your estimates are unreasonable. By my count, and on my
current build, I've not built much of BLFS, there's 15 packages that
look for the flex program. I've installed another 15 non-BLFS packages
that look for it. Those non-BLFS packages are dependencies of BLFS
pa
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/05 22:51 CST:
> What is the package isn't need for either BLFS or LFS, that's the
> question. I understand your concerns, but if it's only required for 2
> packages in BLFS, then is it worth being in LFS?
But Jim, your estimates are unreasonable. By my cou
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
There are more developers for LFS than for BLFS, but the package count
is about 6 to 1 in favor of BLFS.
Actually, I don't think there are more for LFS atm. But your point is
still valid.
--
JH
What is the package isn't need for either BLFS or
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
There are more developers for LFS than for BLFS, but the package count
is about 6 to 1 in favor of BLFS.
Actually, I don't think there are more for LFS atm. But your point is
still valid.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxf
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/05 16:15 CST:
>
>
>>I would like to suggest we move flex into the BLFS book after the 6.0
>>release, and remove flex from the Cross-LFS/Multi-arch book.
>>
>>Please list your comments as a go or no go.
>
>
> I am against this idea.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
The only one I know if in BLFS is tetex. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That is require flex. A lot of developers are moving away from flex.
To what?
I don't know of any other library that lets you build your own l
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
John Profic wrote:
Sorry, for confusion, but I mean book titled i386/x64_64 not
standalone x86_64 (which I notice is *broken* :))
You mean this one?
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/cross-lfs/x86/
If so, the title for that one is 'Intel/AMD x86' and it's assumed th
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
>
>> The only one I know if in BLFS is tetex. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
> That is require flex. A lot of developers are moving away from flex.
>
To what?
I don't know of any other library that lets you build your own lexer.
(Doesn't mean they don't exi
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I can't (don't want to do the research) speak for "require". I can
however show that in many, many BLFS package configure logs, the flex
program, or the yywrap function from libfl.a is looked for.
Well, someone could always volunteer to build a L
John Profic wrote:
Sorry, for confusion, but I mean book titled i386/x64_64 not standalone
x86_64 (which I notice is *broken* :))
You mean this one?
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/cross-lfs/x86/
If so, the title for that one is 'Intel/AMD x86' and it's assumed that
you're building 32-
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I can't (don't want to do the research) speak for "require". I can
however show that in many, many BLFS package configure logs, the flex
program, or the yywrap function from libfl.a is looked for.
Well, someone could always volunteer to build a LFS without flex and
build
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/05 17:16 CST:
>>The only one I know if in BLFS is tetex. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
> That is require flex. A lot of developers are moving away from flex.
I can't (don't want to do the research) speak for "require". I can
however show that in many, many BLF
Jim Gifford wrote:
The only one I know if in BLFS is tetex. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That is require flex. A lot of developers are moving away from flex.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/05 16:15 CST:
I would like to suggest we move flex into the BLFS book after the 6.0
release, and remove flex from the Cross-LFS/Multi-arch book.
Please list your comments as a go or no go.
I am against this idea. Flex is
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/05 16:15 CST:
> I would like to suggest we move flex into the BLFS book after the 6.0
> release, and remove flex from the Cross-LFS/Multi-arch book.
>
> Please list your comments as a go or no go.
I am against this idea. Flex is a tool used in the build pr
I've posted a comment on this, but it was hidden in another thread. So I
will just ask it here in a public forum
Do we really need to have flex in the LFS book. We have listed
binutils(HJL), kbd, and module-init-tools as needing flex, I have
verified, and they do not need flex.
I would like
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
You really shouldn't be trying to build cross-lfs from what it is
currently in the x86_64 book. Did you see the note at the beginning that
the book is broken? We haven't even *started* editing that one yet. (I
think it was mostly just pages from other books dumped into p
John Profic wrote:
I'm continue trying to build lfs by intructions from cross-lfs on x86_64.
Currently I finish temp-tools part, and have some notices:
1) Gcc, compiled by instructions from cross-lfs-x86 uses /lib64 even
build with enable-multilib=no, so no one just compiled program cannot
run
I'm continue trying to build lfs by intructions from cross-lfs on x86_64.
Currently I finish temp-tools part, and have some notices:
1) Gcc, compiled by instructions from cross-lfs-x86 uses /lib64 even
build with enable-multilib=no, so no one just compiled program cannot
run at all (using of cou
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Well then, we need to fix the LFS rules file because the cd just uses
the default rules from that. No changes have been made.
Hmm, kinda shot myself in the foot there didn't I!
bash-3.00$ ls -l /dev/input/*
crw-r--r-- 1 root root 13, 63 2005-05-1
24 matches
Mail list logo
