On 1/9/06, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some nitpicks related to the UTF-8 patch:
> * /usr/bin/zsoelim from groff is overwritten by man-db (three cheers
> for pkg-user hint:).
> * Mention that users can choose the man package instead of man-db
> (with a pointer to the man home-page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Obviously '-B' works for you, and obviously, Ryan's methods work for
> him. Is there a 'best for LFS' in all of that?
When in doubt, play the multilib card! :-)
But seriously, I dunno. I fail to see how you can equate the 2. Comparing
cross compilation to native compilat
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't using -B to find libraries an abuse as well?
>
>
> Huh? Using a documented switch for a documented purpose?
> RTFM :-)
:/ I have read the man pages on gcc. I was asking for a bit more, if you
have it. The problem comes in the form that w
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Isn't using -B to find libraries an abuse as well?
Huh? Using a documented switch for a documented purpose?
RTFM :-)
Regards
Greg
--
http://www.diy-linux.org/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Not exactly. That bug report is about startfile_prefix_spec being a faulty
> spec. It coincidentally highlighted the fact that GCC devs want it removed.
Yes, you're right. I didn't word it correctly. Anway, the point is made.
> It's there in the current stable book and doin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> There is a bug open to remove this feature from gcc. But, it is a year
> old now and still open.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19353
Not exactly. That bug report is about startfile_prefix_spec being a faulty
spec. It coincidentally highlighted the fact
On 1/27/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess clfs doesn't have this problem because it is using a newer
> snapshot of glibc. Does that seem reasonable ?
Greg once posted a reference to an upstream bug report. But I don't
know whether it is fixed or not. One way to find out is b
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Maybe one of the package does this. Try this to verify that it is
indeed a problem with ldconfig.
Compile readline as follows:
./configure --prefix=/tmp/readline
make
make install
make install
ls -l /tmp/read
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
1) Have the two toolchain bugs (1675 and 1677 - note that 1675's title
isn't entirely accurate!) fixed in LFS trunk. I'd need to re-read the
discussions on those two to figure out quite what's wrong and how to fix
them, or someone else could just
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hello Everyone
As I mentioned in another thread, my intention is to re-add this method
into the LFS book.
Jeremy, this is primarily so as you know I've read your email! I'm far
too ignorant about the toolchain to possibly comment on the suitability
or otherwise of you
Filip Bartmann wrote:
Why you don't write about paco(http://paco.sourceforge.net/) in section,
about package management in LFS and BLFS book? I install and make
packages with this tool for whole LFS, and this is the very good tool
for this.
It is linked to by way of the pointer to the hints pro
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Maybe one of the package does this. Try this to verify that it is
indeed a problem with ldconfig.
Compile readline as follows:
./configure --prefix=/tmp/readline
make
make install
make install
ls -l /tmp/readline/lib
ldconfig -n /tmp/readline/lib
ls
On 1/27/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My script makes no explicit calls to ldconfig.
>
>
Maybe one of the package does this. Try this to verify that it is
indeed a problem with ldconfig.
Compile readline as follows:
./configure --prefix=/tmp/readline
make
make install
make install
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/27/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the non-alphabetic book, with utf8, I never managed to track down
why updating readline in place was leaving the symlinks pointing to
.old. FWIW clfs (ppc) was ok for that, so it must have been
On 1/27/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On the non-alphabetic book, with utf8, I never managed to track down
> why updating readline in place was leaving the symlinks pointing to
> .old. FWIW clfs (ppc) was ok for that, so it must have been a problem
> specific to the non-alphabeti
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
I had trouble installing NAS on my newly build LFS (development) system.
Until I found this note from Richard that mentioned the problem:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2003-October/004396.html
There was a reply from Tu
On 1/26/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, the only person lately who has shown the required levels of
> understanding, drive and commitment, is you Dan. You obviously care quite
> a lot about LFS. If I were a betting man, my money would be on you for
> sure :-)
Thanks for the v
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> then Ryan's guidance is needed right about now. If anyone knows how
> to get in touch with him, I'd appreciate if they would. My efforts
> have failed, and I don't use IRC.
My proposal from today about re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec is based
on guidance from Ryan. You'll
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Couple of typos in the attached patch. Just letting you know that I've
noticed them, will fix them, and will also render/validate these changes
before I commit. I've made several careless mistakes recently, and I'm
going to be putting much more care into my work in the futur
Hello Everyone
As I mentioned in another thread, my intention is to re-add this method
into the LFS book. I've done a test build using this, and everything
works as expected. Using Greg's extended tests, we know for certain that
binutils and gcc will be linking against the right Glibc in chapter 6
I don't know if anyone else has run into this (or noticed it), but there
is a problem building older versions of GCC (at least the 3.3.6 version
- I didn't check any other versions) in BLFS caused by the use of an
obsolete syntax for 'tail' in the makefile.
I also do not know what the exact conse
Long ago, On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Hi again,
Here's some results from my ICA/Farce run of yesterday. They show
that the system will rebuild itself with the exception of a couple
things that probably won't be fixed by me. (stdc++ .la and gch
differences) These exist whether
Why you don't write about paco(http://paco.sourceforge.net/) in section,
about package management in LFS and BLFS book? I install and make
packages with this tool for whole LFS, and this is the very good tool
for this.
Filip Bartmann
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: ht
23 matches
Mail list logo
