Ryan Oliver wrote:
I must admit I never really ever bothered doing a time comparison
between the methods (the build takes as long as it takes). Would be
interesting to get some figures...
If we can get jhalfs set up to parse CLFS x86 -> x86, I can time the
builds here.
--
JH
--
http://linux
Ryan Oliver wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 00:24 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Greg Schafer wrote:
Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in
GCC-Pass1, 1 time in GCC-Pass2 and 3 times Ch6 GCC. It also means you end
This just made me think of something else, a mer
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 00:24 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>
> > Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in
> > GCC-Pass1, 1 time in GCC-Pass2 and 3 times Ch6 GCC. It also means you end
>
> This just made me think of something else, a mere side
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 15:41 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> > In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we
> > can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add
> > 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6.
>
> H
Greg Schafer wrote:
Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in
GCC-Pass1, 1 time in GCC-Pass2 and 3 times Ch6 GCC. It also means you end
This just made me think of something else, a mere side point... If CLFS
adopted this technique as well (bootstrapping the fi
Greg Schafer wrote:
In summary, I don't agree. The LFS build is already slow as molasses and
now you want to make it even slower. No offence to Ryan's very good
technical skills, but already on numerous occasions his sledgehammer
techniques have been proven without a doubt to be genuine overkill
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we
> can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add
> 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6.
Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 18:43 -0700, Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:26:15PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> >
> > Comments?
>
> My comment is let's just build it right instead of relying on a make
> target that builds gcc 3 times. If the wrong includes and libs are being
> used, why ca
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:26:15PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Comments?
My comment is let's just build it right instead of relying on a make
target that builds gcc 3 times. If the wrong includes and libs are being
used, why can't we just make it look in the right places? In fact, I
thought
Archaic wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 05:24:26PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
I like #3, as it works, I can't see any harm in it, and if you
install Mozilla, the link is wiped out.
Sounds like the easiest method proffered so far.
Yay, proffered! That word always makes me laugh. Not sure why
Hello All,
In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we
can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add
'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6.
The benefits of this is that, after it builds its stage 1 xgcc, even if
there are inconsi
The excellent page 7.4 on "Device and Module Handling on an LFS System"
has a minor wording difficulty for me. In 7.4.4 the
sentence "A kernel driver may not export its data to sysfs." means that
a kernel driver is not allowed, by some unspecified rules, to export its
data to sysfs. What I think
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi folks,
When bash-3.1 went into the book did anyone test whether or not
'--without-bash-malloc' still causes the segfaults that the book
claims is the reason we use the switch? If not, I'd prefer we drop
the switch, as the configure script leads me to think that the
Hi folks,
When bash-3.1 went into the book did anyone test whether or not
'--without-bash-malloc' still causes the segfaults that the book claims
is the reason we use the switch? If not, I'd prefer we drop the switch,
as the configure script leads me to think that the author believes bash
sh
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 01:37:21AM +0500, Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
>
> >>I am looking for a way to build a clean production system. ie system
> >>without development parts.
Dimitry, I maintain several LFS-based production systems and here is
what I do:
1) Build a full LFS on another box of the sa
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
>
>>I am looking for a way to build a clean production system. ie system
>>without development parts.
>>
> You have two approaches.
>
> A) [preferred] Use Debian Sarge or maybe Etch. Rationale:
>
> 1) Its minimal install
Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
How I can install grub loader over /dev/md0 software raid mirror ?
Please ask this on either lfs-support or bug-grub@gnu.org as it is
off-topic for this mailing list.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:50:30PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >Traditionally, when a new release of an upstream package was made, it
> >was reported via reopening an existing bug in bugzilla and changing its
> >title to reflect the new version number
With lilo it was posible to say
boot=/dev/md0
root=/dev/md0
in /etc/lilo.conf and lilo will corectly install boot loader over software
raid. (you will need mbr for every disk in raid in this case, but this is
not problem)
How I can install grub loader over /dev/md0 software raid mirror ?
(the lo
19 matches
Mail list logo
