On 3/14/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > One of the things that currently doesn't happen in the chroot
> > toolchain adjustment for LFS is making gcc prefer the new headers in
> > /usr/include. If you add '-v' to the sanity check output, you'll see
> > that
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Manuel brought up a recent regression shown by ICA in cc1 and cc1plus.
> Then I remembered one other thing Greg recently tweaked for more purity.
>
> http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2006-December/000967.html
>
> One of the things that currently doesn't
On 3/14/07, Richard Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In the latest development branch (SVN-20070314), the
> bash-3.2-fixes-2.patch creates a problem in bash, as regular
> expression matches in conditionals don't work anymore :
>
> [[ $test =~ $regexpr ]]
>
&g
Hi
In the latest development branch (SVN-20070314), the
bash-3.2-fixes-2.patch creates a problem in bash, as regular
expression matches in conditionals don't work anymore :
[[ $test =~ $regexpr ]]
always returns 1 in $?.
Tested without the patch, all works fine. I saw a 'protection&#
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> Although I am rather new in linux-land , I can't really understand why the
> vast majority of linux users still uses bash as their interactive shell.
> Zsh is far superior in almost every aspect of interactivity.
I don't know the reasons for sure, but let me give you the
On 3/14/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I keep bash around because I want the shell scripts to be portable, and sh
> emulation in zsh
> still is not perfect.
If that's the only reason, then why not install a shell who's only
intention is to be POSIX compliant like dash or posh
On Wed, Mar 14, at 08:59 Wilco Beekhuizen wrote:
> Thanks for the info! I solved the problem and bash was not the one to blame.
> While writing this I noticed readline-5.1 was on my system. Updating
> to 5.2 solved my problems!
Happy.
Rant:
Although I am rather new in linux-land , I can't really
2007/3/14, Ag. Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Mar 14, at 09:49 Wilco Beekhuizen wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestion but I'm not using bash_completion.
> > Fortunately I found the solution. In 6.28 of the LFS book
> > "--with-installed-readline" is passed to the configure script. Witho
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 16:45, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > "The ldd shell script contains Bash-specific syntax.
> > > Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash
> > >
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/14/07 11:26 CST:
> "Change its invocation (shebang) line to ...
Another suggestion: "Change its program interpreter (shebang) line to ..."
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.
On 3/14/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> > How about:
> >
> > "The ldd shell script contains Bash-specific syntax.
> > Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in
> > case
> > other shells (see BLFS) are installed and
> > linked
Manuel brought up a recent regression shown by ICA in cc1 and cc1plus.
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-February/059037.html
I did some investigation on this. I reproduced it running jhalfs, but
it didn't show up in my own scripts. I've got a few DIY tweaks in
there, so I starte
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> How about:
>
> "The ldd shell script contains Bash-specific syntax.
> Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in case
> other shells (see BLFS) are installed and linked
> to /bin/sh later:"
I don't particularly like using the word 'sheba
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>> Out of the box, an LFS system will report (None) as the domainname.
>> which is correct, because LFS never sets up NIS. The domainname is not the
>> DNS domain name but a NIS thing. Wyou
On 3/14/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> "The ldd shell script contains Bash-specific syntax.
> Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in case
> other shells (see BLFS) are installed and linked
> to /bin/sh later:"
>
> Obviously the ma
On 3/13/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, at 09:49 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > Suggestions on the explanation welcomed for this patch.
> >
> As you miiight :) have noticed by now, I am not an expert in English language
> but ...
> shouldn't be ?
I was just testi
On 3/13/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > Out of the box, an LFS system will report (None) as the domainname.
>
> which is correct, because LFS never sets up NIS. The domainname is not the
> DNS domain name but a NIS thing. Wyou want to modify resolv.co
On Wed, Mar 14, at 09:49 Wilco Beekhuizen wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion but I'm not using bash_completion.
> Fortunately I found the solution. In 6.28 of the LFS book
> "--with-installed-readline" is passed to the configure script. Without
> this switch, tab completion seems to work fine again
Thanks for the suggestion but I'm not using bash_completion.
Fortunately I found the solution. In 6.28 of the LFS book
"--with-installed-readline" is passed to the configure script. Without
this switch, tab completion seems to work fine again.
I haven't thoroughly tested this but this maybe some bu
19 matches
Mail list logo
