Matthew Burgess wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
My patch is already in -mm.
And now it is not.
:-( Any ideas why, and how are you tracking its -mm status?
There are automated notifications sent to patch authors. Basically, Alan
Cox wanted me to write a proper solution, i.e. to reqri
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 08:45 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Piet Delaney wrote:
> > find: ./lfs-sources: Input/output error
> > ./proc
> > ./sys
> > find: ./sys: Input/output error
> > find: ./dev: Input/output error
> >
>
> Reburn. Use a CD-R blank instead of (less reliable) CD-RW.
They
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Thanks very much Justin, much appreciated!
I'm glad to help out! Ok, all lfs packages are in the repo and up to
date. Now to finish up blfs, clfs, hlfs... ;)
Justin
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Uns
Justin R. Knierim wrote:
I'll be updating packages now so the mirrors will have
shadow-4.0.17 in a few. As for 6.2, the packages will be on the ftp
mirrors for a _long_ time, since even 6.0 is still there, so no need for
errata.
Thanks very much Justin, much appreciated!
Matt.
--
http://li
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
A similar note is in 6.2, but points to our package mirror instead, so I
don't think anything needs to be done, to be honest.
The package mirrors will be much more up to date now that I finally got
my dsl fixed! Hooray! I personally would have lef
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
My patch is already in -mm.
And now it is not.
:-( Any ideas why, and how are you tracking its -mm status?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 8/8/06, gabriel batir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
In LFS-6.2 the link to shadow-4.0.15 is wrong too.
New link ftp://ftp.pld.org.pl/software/shadow/old/shadow-4.0.15.tar.bz2
Too late for 6.2, but we can put that in the errata. Should be there soon.
A similar note is
> Do any of you have gcc3 ssp to confirm this code is aborted
> with -fstack-protector-all, and drops to shell with
-fno-stack-protector-all?
> This code has assembly, you need to pass -no-pie too. I clearly remember
> stopping using libsafe because ssp aborted all the same exploits libsafe
> would
On 8/8/06, gabriel batir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In LFS SVN-20060805
The maintainer of shadow has released shadow-4.0.18 and the previous version
has been moved.
So in 3.2. All Packages the link must be changed to
ftp://ftp.pld.org.pl/software/shadow/old/shadow-4.0.17.tar.bz2
Thanks, but
I wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Linux UTF-8 Input - Fixes dead keys and copy/paste of non-ASCII
characters in UTF-8 mode on Linux console - Rejected upstream because
it changes the meaning of an existing ioctl - Drop the patch and
replace it with one that looks more likely to be accepted
In LFS SVN-20060805
The maintainer of shadow has released shadow-4.0.18 and the previous version
has been moved.
So in 3.2. All Packages the link must be changed to
ftp://ftp.pld.org.pl/software/shadow/old/shadow-4.0.17.tar.bz2
In LFS-6.2 the link to shadow-4.0.15 is wrong too.
New link ftp
11 matches
Mail list logo