On 3/20/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And IMHO any mention of the old 64-bit CLFS LiveCD should be removed from
> the site.
LiveCD that I was talking about is
ftp://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS-LiveCD/lfslivecd-x86_64-CRS051009-pre1.iso
And yes, now I've noticed that
On 3/20/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What are you talking about? The regular stable 6.2-5 LFS LiveCD also
> contains a 64-bit kernel (but the userspace is still 32-bit). It is good
> enough to compile x86_64 CLFS using the chroot method.
If you're building 64-bit *LFS s
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> And IMHO any mention of the old 64-bit CLFS LiveCD should be removed from
> the site.
I believe you have the privileges to do that.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
Fix wrote:
> However, I've seen x86_64 beta LiveCD on the ftp, and I thought it is
> a development version of the LFS. Is it a CLFS?
What are you talking about? The regular stable 6.2-5 LFS LiveCD also
contains a 64-bit kernel (but the userspace is still 32-bit). It is good
enough to compile x8
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
After digging through the make check process, I found that the program
that crashes my system is extend-reflect. It only crashes when running
within an X environment.
Error: Failed to set xlib target
TEST: extend-reflect TARGET: xlib FORMAT: argb32 OFFSET: 0 RESULT: UNTESTED
But this is exactly
On 3/19/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And as Chris told you in your other thread, LFS doesn't support either
> multilib or 64-bit systems. You want CLFS:
>
> http://trac.cross-lfs.org/
>
> instead.
Well, thanks for deciding for me what I want. :)
However, I've seen x86_64 beta
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's the test that's run at the end of "make install".
Well, I'd run "make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-build-check" just after
"make install", and got a few failures only (including
posix/annexc and a couple of tests failed due to the absence of
Fix wrote:
>> Greg came up with a pretty good solution for DIY (IMO). Basically,
>> by passing CC="gcc -B/usr/bin/" during binutils-pass1 and
>> gcc-pass1, gcc will continue to use the host linker until we get
>> our gcc built.
>
> Maybe this hack work for FC6 (i686), but it isn't actually suffici
