On 3/20/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Attached are two patches to add the glibc branch update patch in Ch. 5
> and force /usr/include to be used as the preferred system include
> directory after the toolchain re-adjustment.
I should mention that I changed the specs adjustment to
On 3/19/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, it seems this difference is embedded in cc1 and can't be stripped
out after the build. I'm assuming that the original difference is just
debugging symbols like would normally be the case. I'll try to narrow
that down further, but this may
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've been trying to figure out why the attached file fails on my LFS
>> systems. It does not fail on FC or RHEL kernels.
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if some of you could run the attached program ans send
>> me the results.
>
On 3/20/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Progress appears to being made toward a 6.3 release. We currently have 9
> tickets to resolve before we can push another release out[0].
Yeah, that'd be great.
> I'm happy to postpone the rendering toolchain related bugs #1947 (fop-0.93)
On 3/20/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been trying to figure out why the attached file fails on my LFS
> systems. It does not fail on FC or RHEL kernels.
>
> I'd appreciate it if some of you could run the attached program ans send
> me the results.
I got all passes on my system
I've been trying to figure out why the attached file fails on my LFS
systems. It does not fail on FC or RHEL kernels.
I'd appreciate it if some of you could run the attached program ans send
me the results.
You just run the binary. If you don't want to do that, the full source
to is at
http://p
Hi folks,
Progress appears to being made toward a 6.3 release. We currently have 9
tickets to resolve before we can push another release out[0].
I'm happy to postpone the rendering toolchain related bugs #1947 (fop-0.93)
and its dependency of #1956 (docbook-xsl-1.72.1) if upstream aren't in a
Just a note to say I was trying out the LTP today on my 6.2 test system.
http://ltp.sourceforge.net/
I ran the tests and got four failures:
mincore01 FAIL 1
gf15 FAIL 1
gf17 FAIL 1
gf18
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 02:26, Fix wrote:
> So that I'm waiting for anyone else to confirm or to reject the report.
Using jhalfs r3335 to complete a build of LFS SVN-20070319 on an i686 box,
only annexc and tst-cancel1.out fail for me, and test-installation.pl reports
success too. While the cu
El Martes, 20 de Marzo de 2007 06:18, Fix escribió:
> If you're building 64-bit *LFS system WITHOUT use of the cross
> compilation, you would need the 64-bit host system, I guess. That's
> what I do. And I think that system wouldn't be neither Cross nor
> Beyond LFS.
Right, but the LFS book is in
10 matches
Mail list logo
