Tushar Teredesai wrote:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002-January/022604.html
And on Debian Sarge, e2fsck is dynamically linked.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscri
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> I, and I'm guessing many others, build PCRE right before Grep in
> chapter 6.
I don't. I've never *built* pcre (though it was probably *installed* on
most of the Mandrake setups I used to use, years ago). But then, I
don't usually use Perl, so I don't really miss much w
On 1/10/06, Jeremy Herbison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I understand that Readline was added to LFS because:
> 1) Bash can use it vs. its bundled readline functions.
> 2) Lots of BLFS packages can link to it.
Readline was added mainly for reason 1. Rather than link in the
internal readline stat
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:53:12PM -0700, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> I doubt this will go over well, but what the heck:
>
> I understand that Readline was added to LFS because:
> 1) Bash can use it vs. its bundled readline functions.
> 2) Lots of BLFS packages can link to it.
>
> I believe PCRE sho
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I suppose I'm just not a big fan of changes, so I was hoping you
could summarize this. That way everyone could review it, and go use
it and know what to look for difference-wise. There's only been
about 6 people vote on this, I wouldn't really call it a 'community
decision'
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 01/10/06 16:05 CST:
> So the weight has definitely shifted to number 2. Which is what I
> expected, and is fine. Unless there are any other objections then, I
> think we can safely say that we will be replacing Bugzilla and ViewCVS
> with a trac installation
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Greg Schafer wrote:
Hmmm, AFAICS there is no easy way to fool configure into doing what we
need. This is the best I can come up with for now. After running
configure, do this:
echo '#define YYENABLE_NLS 1' >> config.h
I can confirm it fixes the ICA problem.
Indeed it does
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:40:35 +
Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
> Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
> Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I would really quite like to see
> de
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Ken Moffat wrote:
I'll look at reversing this and kicking gccbug into shape.
Done
--
das eine Mal als Trag?die, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above informatio
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Ken Moffat wrote:
No, I'm seeing differences specific to groff-1.18.1, but actually these
aren't to do with date/time (unlike the 3 regexps I put into 001-6 for this
version of groff). Stuff like
failure in /usr/share/doc/groff/1.18.1/meintro.ps...
1590,1592c1590,1592
< (
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 07:56:37PM +, Richard A Downing wrote:
>
> I'm beginning to think that really really really good packages shouldn't
> have updates unless the things they interface with change.
If it fixes a bug that affects *you* and how *you* use the system, or if
it is a security vu
Archaic wrote:
So basically you are adding undue weight to your preference make option
2 require much more support that option 1? That seems jaded.
No, I was just saying that we haven't gotten as much feedback as I would
have liked, and so far the votes seemed nearly even. I knew if I said
s
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:11:07 +
Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:55:57 -0500
> Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would really like to get everyone's opinion.
> All things being equal I think this looks like a good candidate for a
> complete
On 1/10/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. The HTML as it stands is basically static.
> 2. The people who are allowed to edit the pages already have the
>ability.
> 3. The website is stable and works well.
> 4. The website includes some already scripted and automated dynamic
>con
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:47:15PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Also, I'm still preferring that we choose option 1, IOW, that we use
> trac for as much as we can, including the main site. There have been a
> couple that have chosen that option, as well. So if we are going to go
> with 2, IOW,
On 1/10/2006 14:53, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
+1
I don't think I've ever run any machine except windows without this lib
> p.s. Alternatively, could a note similar to Shadow's Cracklib tip
> be added to Grep's instructions?
+1 to this if there is hate and discontent.
~Jason
--
--
http://linuxf
> Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > Okay, but in the event that it finds a problem, you'll still need a
> recovery
> > disk of some sort. Or, if it can't run fsck at all because fsck is
> linked to
> > a damaged .so, you'll know there is a problem anyhow and you'll STILL
> need
> > a recovery disk with a
I doubt this will go over well, but what the heck:
I understand that Readline was added to LFS because:
1) Bash can use it vs. its bundled readline functions.
2) Lots of BLFS packages can link to it.
I believe PCRE should be added to LFS because:
1) Grep can use it vs. its bundled regex functions
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
Okay, but in the event that it finds a problem, you'll still need a recovery
disk of some sort. Or, if it can't run fsck at all because fsck is linked to
a damaged .so, you'll know there is a problem anyhow and you'll STILL need
a recovery disk with a different fsck binary
> Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > Except that you typically run fsck on an unmounted disk, so a fsck
> binary
> > on the damaged partition isn't going to help you, whether it is linked
> to
> > other libraries or not.
>
> So tell me how you run fsck on your root filesystem at startup if you
> don't mou
On 1/10/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Where would it end? Reader X wants LFS package A, B, and C listed
> in BLFS. Reader Y wants package D, E and F listed. And so forth
> and so on.
>
Yeah, I know. It's totally subjective and would be a PITA. Maybe
I'll get around to writing
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/10/06 12:41 CST:
> Those are good picks since there is a lot of linking to these packages
> in BLFS. A special policy would have to be approved, though.
It is not so much a policy being approved, it would be more a method
of *how to do it*. Would it just be
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
Except that you typically run fsck on an unmounted disk, so a fsck binary
on the damaged partition isn't going to help you, whether it is linked to
other libraries or not.
So tell me how you run fsck on your root filesystem at startup if you
don't mount the disk at all?
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > Recently when doing some ICA on e2fsprogs I noticed that /sbin/e2fsck
> > is statically linked. Is this what we want? I might need a solid
> > blow from the cluebat, but seems most of the time we make shared
> > binaries when possible. e2fsprogs builds both a shared an
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Some policy would have to be made to prevent
>>>packages like coreutils and gawk that would show up everywhere. Just
>>>a thought. I guess BDB is the main
On 1/10/06, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Some policy would have to be made to prevent
> > packages like coreutils and gawk that would show up everywhere. Just
> > a thought. I guess BDB is the main one that bugs me.
>
>
On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some policy would have to be made to prevent
> packages like coreutils and gawk that would show up everywhere. Just
> a thought. I guess BDB is the main one that bugs me.
Ditto. For me, in the current LFS book, I would prefer BLFS mention
On 1/10/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > Ah, yes, that is a good reason. Man, that cluebat stings!
>
> Don't it though? :) Eh, we've all had our share of cluebat hits. Except
> maybe Patrakov. He always seems to have all the answers. What d'ya say
> we gang
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Ah, yes, that is a good reason. Man, that cluebat stings!
Don't it though? :) Eh, we've all had our share of cluebat hits. Except
maybe Patrakov. He always seems to have all the answers. What d'ya say
we gang up and give him his share of pummeling? ;)
--
JH
--
http://l
On 1/10/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > To have the
> > shared e2fsck installed, you can add --enable-dynamic-e2fsck to the
> > configure line.
>
> Well, if the file-system is corrupted, wouldn't you want to be using as
> few files on that system as possibl
On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comments?
>
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002-January/022604.html
:-)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Recently when doing some ICA on e2fsprogs I noticed that /sbin/e2fsck
is statically linked. Is this what we want? I might need a solid
blow from the cluebat, but seems most of the time we make shared
binaries when possible. e2fsprogs builds both a shared and static
e2fsck,
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/10/06 07:59 CST:
>
>
>>I'm in that minority too. I haven't suggested it because I know that
>>BLFS always assumes that you have a base LFS system including every
>>package in LFS, but it would still be nice to have all the dependency
Recently when doing some ICA on e2fsprogs I noticed that /sbin/e2fsck
is statically linked. Is this what we want? I might need a solid
blow from the cluebat, but seems most of the time we make shared
binaries when possible. e2fsprogs builds both a shared and static
e2fsck, but copies e2fsck.stat
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Ken, the same thing has happened to me with perl. Sometimes a
difference is reported. sometimes not. For both farce and ICA, IIRC.
It's the single reason why I keep moving gettext around in my builds
even though it comes after perl in both cases. I th
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Seems OK to me. Is this what you're seeing?
No, I'm seeing differences specific to groff-1.18.1, but actually these
aren't to do with date/time (unlike the 3 regexps I put into 001-6 for
this version of groff). Stuff like
failure in /usr/share/do
On 1/10/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > So, at the moment I have
> > an aberrant build of perl in the first run of the fourth cycle, and at the
> > moment I can't replicate it.
>
> Latest attempt to build this was fine, so I'll have to mar
On 1/10/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:17:41AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > diff -ur iter1/usr/share/doc/groff/1.19.2/examples/grnexmpl.ps
> > iter2/usr/share/doc/groff/1.19.2/examples/grnexmpl.ps
>
> Um. You're using groff 1.19.2. Is that causing any
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:17:41AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> diff -ur iter1/usr/share/doc/groff/1.19.2/examples/grnexmpl.ps
> iter2/usr/share/doc/groff/1.19.2/examples/grnexmpl.ps
Um. You're using groff 1.19.2. Is that causing any differences?
Did I miss a note about that somewhere?
--
JH
--
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/10/06 08:11 CST:
> I have no idea how that would be feasible, but I agree. I'd like to
> know what BLFS packages use BDB, especially since it's still included
> in the BLFS book. Some policy would have to be made to prevent
> packages like coreutils and gawk
On 1/10/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > So, at the moment I have
> > an aberrant build of perl in the first run of the fourth cycle, and at the
> > moment I can't replicate it.
>
> Latest attempt to build this was fine, so I'll have to mar
Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/10/06 07:59 CST:
> I'm in that minority too. I haven't suggested it because I know that
> BLFS always assumes that you have a base LFS system including every
> package in LFS, but it would still be nice to have all the dependency
> information. Also, you'd pr
On 1/10/06, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
> Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, actually, they have been commented out. It would be really
> > easy to
> >
> > grep -lr 'linkend="db"/>' *
> >
> > from the root of the XML tree an
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Ken Moffat wrote:
So, at the moment I have
an aberrant build of perl in the first run of the fourth cycle, and at the
moment I can't replicate it.
Latest attempt to build this was fine, so I'll have to mark my problem
as "unconfirmed". Looks as if I've still got issue
Richard A Downing wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The BDB dependencies have already been removed from SVN
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
> > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
> > Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>The BDB dependencies have already been removed from SVN BLFS.
> >
> >
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
> Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The BDB dependencies have already been removed from SVN BLFS.
>
> pity.
Well, actually, they have been commented out. It would be really
easy to
grep -lr
My 2 cents take on this ...
> We don't mention that you can use Net-Tools instead of IPRoute and
> then add a note to the bootscripts page.
>
> Is there any difference?
It's huge. Basically net-tools are racy (with regard to SMP, proc-fs and
ioctl) and lack most of the advanced networking functi
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joel Miller wrote these words on 01/09/06 18:08 CST:
>
> > Additionally, IIRC, BLFS is no longer going to list BDB as a
> > dependence (i.e. they assume it will be installed).
>
> The BDB dependencies have already bee
49 matches
Mail list logo
