On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 08:58:03PM +, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> I think that the deciding factor should be that this is acknowledged
> and fixed upstream. OTOH, it looks like BLFS can work arround it if
> needs be with an LD_PRELOAD line...It might be a pain to find them,
> but it can be done I sup
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:01:47PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Ok, so the order in which libraries are loaded, together with a missing
library, can trigger an assertion failure in glibc. "Doctor, it hurts
when I delete this library which has other libraries depending on it."
In
Ken Moffat wrote:
Looking at the gentoo, debian, and blfs references, this seems to be
triggered by (a) nvidia drivers, or (b) gnome (versions/items not
specified), or (c) xmms (1.2.8? debian version) without libmikmod2, or
(d) some OOo issue. From here, trying to trigger the bug looks like
Hi guys,
Just a FYI. The script that renders the lfs-book used to get rendered
twice a day, at 4 AM and 4 PM. I removed the 4 PM job and just have it
update once a day from now on. This'll help with the server load during
the day when too many other things are going on.
Server replacement is
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Note that BLFS-6.1 assumes LFS-6.1 as a base, therefore I'd think that
> BLFS-6.1.1 (if there is such a release) will assume LFS-6.1.1. As such,
> I don't consider OOo2 to be an issue as it's not in an existing release
> of BLFS. Xine may be a different issue, though as
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:01:47PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> Ok, so the order in which libraries are loaded, together with a missing
> library, can trigger an assertion failure in glibc. "Doctor, it hurts
> when I delete this library which has other libraries depending on it."
In the test
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Personally, I've not seen any problems with xmms (1.2.10) or xine that
sound like this bug, even on my 6.1 systems.
It is a glibc bug, not nvidia, xmms, xine, or OOo. Read the debian bug
report m
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Personally, I've not seen any problems with xmms (1.2.10) or xine that
> sound like this bug, even on my 6.1 systems.
It is a glibc bug, not nvidia, xmms, xine, or OOo. Read the debian bug
report mentioned elsewhere by DJ for the l
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd suggest
testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and verified only
on 2.3.5.
I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask som
Richard A Downing wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:10:45 +0100
> Jörg W Mittag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
I contacted the gmane guys today to see about getting things organised
with regard to a more consistent mirroring setup for all of the li
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5.
I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask
someone else to do a full 6.1.1-pre1 build witho
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5. The patch for 2.3.5 is also in patches. It's
been running for about 10 hours on an establish system of around 4
mo
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5. The patch for 2.3.5 is also in patches. It's
been running for about 10 hours on an establish system of around 4
months under modera
Matt Darcy wrote:
uncompressing a file with bzip2 compression using tar 1.15.1 built in
/tools failed for me.
From what you guys have both said, I'm assuming you expected it to add
the j option on its own ?
For tar >= 1.15.x all you should need to do on compressed tarballs is:
'tar -xf fi
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
However the missing j option for untaring needs updating.
Again, we're using the tar in /tools at this time which we know is
tar-1.15.1. Try that version on a tar.bz2 or tar.gz without the -j or
-z and see what happens. ;)
--
JH
uncompressing
Matt Darcy wrote:
However the missing j option for untaring needs updating.
Again, we're using the tar in /tools at this time which we know is
tar-1.15.1. Try that version on a tar.bz2 or tar.gz without the -j or -z
and see what happens. ;)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/lis
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 15:54, Matt Darcy escribió:
> However the missing j option for untaring needs updating.
My comment is valid also for -j or -z switches ;-)
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.es
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 15:01, Matt Darcy escribió:
should be
tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on
platforms.
Not. When issuing that command the tar bin
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 15:01, Matt Darcy escribió:
> should be
>
> tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
>
> The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on
> platforms.
Not. When issuing that command the tar binary used must be the on
all,
Chapter 6.50 module init-tools-3.1
the command
tar -xvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
should be
tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on platforms.
Matt
--
h
John Miller wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
William Zhou wrote:
I have been using LFS for more than a year's time and it is great.
One of my friend started LFS several days ago and got an error when
adjusting the toolchain( 5.7 ). The problem was that the gcc specs path
was pointed to the host'
DJ Lucas wrote:
Well, I'm just slightly red faced right now. :-) "I'm almost there"
and then all of a sudden I can't test it any more...but it's back again!
Such an obvious oversight. Yes, the problem does exist. I've got
glibc building now.
Thanks for the cluebat. I guess I'll ge
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 23:18 -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
> CC'd to LFS-Dev for review:
>
> Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /opt/openoffice.org2.0/program/soffice -display :0.0
> > Inconsistency detected by ld.so: ../sysdeps/generic/dl-tls.c: 72:
> > _dl_next_tls_modid: Assertion
23 matches
Mail list logo
