Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: Jim, do you know of any issues with inetutils' `ping' on your multi-arch/cross-lfs builds? I think I remember you mentioning a BUS ERROR you were getting on a Sparc box. Did you get that sorted? Here is a link to my bug report with inetutils. http://savannah.gnu.or

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > iputils was mentioned by Ag > Hatzim, and is what my host (ubuntu) uses. Unfortunately, the very > first thing I see in the Makefile (and what caused my initial > compilation attempt to fail) is: > > KERNEL_INCLUDE=/usr/src/linux/include > > Ouch! It wants /usr/src/lin

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Tushar Teredesai([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 05:06:02PM -0500: > On 8/20/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > > > BTW, if there are no plans to remove inetutils, we might was well keep > > > the utils such as ftp and telnet that it current in

Re: BLFS 6.1 is released

On 8/20/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > The BLFS Editing Team is proud to announce that the BLFS 6.1 has been > > released. > > Congratulations and kudos to the BLFS team. I hope you'll all be > treating yourselves to a well-deserved break now! > We were

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/20/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > BTW, if there are no plans to remove inetutils, we might was well keep > > the utils such as ftp and telnet that it current installs. > > But that was one of the reasons I was proposing we remove it. 'ftp' > s

BLFS 6.1 is released

The BLFS Editing Team is proud to announce that the BLFS 6.1 has been released. This version complements the LFS 6.1 book and is available for download in pdf, single html page, and multiple html page formats. It is also available for on-line reading at the BLFS Website. http://www.linuxfromscrat

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Tushar Teredesai wrote: BTW, if there are no plans to remove inetutils, we might was well keep the utils such as ftp and telnet that it current installs. But that was one of the reasons I was proposing we remove it. 'ftp' simply doesn't compile out of the box on the gcc4 branch, and the only

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I know. I guess my point was that this is old code and will not > compile as is. We don't know what other improvements have been made to > the program by other maintiners. My initial reaction is that it is not > really a viable candidat

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: My initial reaction is that it is not really a viable candidate for LFS. Understood and agreed. gcc-4.0.1 complains bitterly about it too, of course. I doubt it offers anything like the interface offered (and therefore probably expected) by more modern implementations, an

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 03:56:00PM -0500: > > On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>BTW, reexamining the subject line, if inetutils is removed, where is > >>ping installed? ping from iputils is compiled with gcc4 ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru/ip-routing/iputils-

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> $ gcc -o ping ping.c >> ping.c: In function `main': >> ping.c:181: error: `SIGINT' undeclared (first use in this function) > > > Adding "#include " will fix that one, and the SIGALRM failure > too. Yes, I know. I guess my point was that this is

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: $ gcc -o ping ping.c ping.c: In function `main': ping.c:181: error: `SIGINT' undeclared (first use in this function) Adding "#include " will fix that one, and the SIGALRM failure too. As for the others, I'm not in a position to be able to analyse them at the moment (just

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Matthew Burgess wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that are really show-stoppers. Well, there's currently three issues I'm wanting to see fixed/addressed

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>BTW, reexamining the subject line, if inetutils is removed, where is >>ping installed? > > > How about the original ping ? :) > Hopefully it still compiles cleanly and works. >

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

On 8/20/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, reexamining the subject line, if inetutils is removed, where is > ping installed? How about the original ping ? :) Hopefully it still compiles cleanly and works. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PRO

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Although not optimal, there should be *some* >> way of continuing from a successful reboot into LFS into BLFS or some >> other collection of packages via a network connection. >> >> There are other alternatives of course. Wget or a text based brows

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Bruce Dubbs wrote: Although not optimal, there should be *some* way of continuing from a successful reboot into LFS into BLFS or some other collection of packages via a network connection. There are other alternatives of course. Wget or a text based browser come to mind. That's why I mentione

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote: > The clients that inetutils installs either have more secure alternatives > (in the form of sftp, ssh, etc.) or are obscure enough (e.g. 'talk') to > be in the realm of hint material. The only exceptions to this I can > think of are the ftp client and ping binary. One cou

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/20/05 15:06 CST: > We actually have a situation in cross-lfs were we had to remove > inetutils since it work properly on Sparc builds. If it worked properly, why did you have to remove it? :-) (please don't answer, I know what you meant. I'm just making a joke

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

We actually have a situation in cross-lfs were we had to remove inetutils since it work properly on Sparc builds. http://documents.jg555.com/cross-lfs/sparc64-64/final-system/netkit_base.html -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http:

Re: pure64 Version 7.0-cross-lfs-20050819-x86_64 chapter 10.6

During testing with some of the different architectures it doesn't get enabled by default that's why it's been added to the cross-lfs build. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ:

Re: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/20/05 14:15 CST: > [snip all] I can go either way on this one. It will be something I install whether in LFS or not. However, if we remove it from LFS, does this mean we can move to GCC-4 as the default compiler? :-) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.

Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]

Ag Hatzim wrote: > Should we drop the ftp client building from inetutils,for favor of > netkit-ftp. Funny you should mention that, we used to install netkit-base a few years ago. > And just for curiosity, may ask why inetutils belongs to LFS? See http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-arch

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Ag Hatzim([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 08:27:25PM +0300: Just a small correction for anyone wants to try,if you apply the netkit-ftp-0.17-ssl-0.2.patch compiling will fail In addition i attach the patches for anyone is interesting. Some from gentoo,and 2 from fedora. I applied with th

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Should we drop the ftp client building from inetutils,for favor of netkit-ftp. ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/netkit-ftp-0.17.tar.gz Currently,compiled with gcc4.0.1 without patching. The following patches are also available. netkit-ftp-0.17-ssl-0.2.patch netkit-ftp-0.17-acct.p

Re: 7.0-cross-lfs-20050818-x86_64 section 10.3 glibc installation

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: > Ken, Ryan, Doug, and others > > Do we need to make a change here for the pure64 build, or is further > testing needed? > I haven't got into this yet, so I can only compare with my own pure64 using older versions of the toolchain (glibc-2.3.4). My ldd has

Re: Do we need hotplug?

Andrew Benton wrote: The version of udev we have in the development version of the book (udev 063) sets itself as the default hotplug event handler (cat /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug) so do we need the hotplug scripts? Will they ever be used for anything? Is it ever called? Related to this, http:

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Matthew Burgess wrote: 1. Compile inetutils according to the instructions in the GCC-4 branch 2. ftp ftp.gnu.org [login as ('anonymous') 3. cd pub (causes a segfault) Confirmed. Thanks for the clarification -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratc

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Andrew Benton wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: 2) Inetutils doesn't compile without a patch, but the patch we have causes 'ftp' to segfault. (Bug 1602) What steps do I need to go through to see the ftp bug? I don't use the raw ftp program itself. ncftp-3.1.9 is working fine and I sshd uses ft

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Matthew Burgess wrote: 2) Inetutils doesn't compile without a patch, but the patch we have causes 'ftp' to segfault. (Bug 1602) What steps do I need to go through to see the ftp bug? I don't use the raw ftp program itself. ncftp-3.1.9 is working fine and I sshd uses ftp as a backend to acce

Re: pure64 iproute2 version not found

El Sábado, 20 de Agosto de 2005 08:03, Doug Ronne escribió: > pure-64 packages, iproute2 > > instead of 050815, now there is an 050816 Fixed, thanks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es htt

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that are really show-stoppers. Well, there's currently three issues I'm wanting to see fixed/addressed before considering a GCC-4

Re: pure64 Version 7.0-cross-lfs-20050819-x86_64 chapter 10.6

Jim Gifford wrote: Thanx Doug. Change Made. --enable-c99 -- enable the c99 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999) Is it not enabled by default? I don't remember having any issues with C99 features with a by-the-book GCC build. Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. Me too. LFS development should be on gcc-4 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See