On 3/23/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And the cvs reference above should be changed to svn. (There is already
> a sym link vrom cvs->svn).
If we had an entity, this would never have happened in the first place ;)
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FA
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> That's not a good grep because -v svn knocks out all the links that
> say . Check inetutils and shadow, for
> instance.
Right. How about:
chapter02/creatingfilesystem.xml: .
chapter06/inetutils.xml: at . N
ote that
chapter06/shadow.xml: for installing
c
On 3/23/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Dan, I just did a check:
>
> $ grep -r blfs *|grep -v svn
> chapter06/revisedchroot.xml:instructions for this (see url="&blfs-root;"/>).
> chapter06/man-db.xml: url="&blfs-root;view/cvs/postlfs/compressdoc.html
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Dan, I just did a check:
$ grep -r blfs *|grep -v svn
chapter06/revisedchroot.xml:instructions for this (see ).
chapter06/man-db.xml:.
chapter07/console.xml: to blfs-support list -->
chapter07/symlinks.xml:be found in BLFS.
chapter09/whatnow.xml: Book. The
On 3/23/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> > 1. We shouldn't always point to the svn version. When a stable book is
> > released, it should probably point to the stable version of the BLFS
> > book. Although, there could be a time lapse where this could be a bad
>
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/23/07 19:01 CST:
>
>> What's a "program interpreter"?
>>
>> I'd prefer "default shell".
>
> Hopefully, Bruce is just joking. :-) I've been using the term since back
> in the days I was using a Tandy color computer with a 'basic' program
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/23/07 19:01 CST:
> What's a "program interpreter"?
>
> I'd prefer "default shell".
Hopefully, Bruce is just joking. :-) I've been using the term since back
in the days I was using a Tandy color computer with a 'basic' program
interpreter cartridge plugged in.
On 3/23/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm going ahead with this now with my preferred "default program
> > interpreter". Anyone can feel free to change this that doesn't work
> > for them.
>
> What's a "program interpreter"?
>
> I'd prefer "default shell".
When you set the she
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 in
>>> case
>>> other shells (see BLFS) are i
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> 1. We shouldn't always point to the svn version. When a stable book is
> released, it should probably point to the stable version of the BLFS
> book. Although, there could be a time lapse where this could be a bad
> idea, i.e. LFS-6.2 + BLFS-6.1. Still, if someone's followin
On 3/23/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/23/07 18:20 CST:
> > On 3/23/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I don't see an issue. Perhaps a short sentence (in para form) after
> >> the "Package Information" bullets noting the differe
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/23/07 18:20 CST:
> On 3/23/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see an issue. Perhaps a short sentence (in para form) after
>> the "Package Information" bullets noting the difference in the name,
>> though they are the same files.
>
> As lo
On 3/23/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't see an issue. Perhaps a short sentence (in para form) after
> the "Package Information" bullets noting the difference in the name,
> though they are the same files.
As long as you don't see an issue, I don't feel like cluttering up
This thread is the same as what you're asking about:
http://grsecurity.net/pipermail/grsecurity/2005-October/000581.html
It says to run 'paxctl -spm' on the program and libraries, but it sounds like
you tried that.
CFLAGS="-nopie -fno-pic -norelro -nonow -fno-stack-protector
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0"
El Viernes, 23 de Marzo de 2007 23:24, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm ready to update the book to FOP-0.93, but wanted to throw out a
> note that we cannot use it to produce PDF output from the SVN XML
> sources.
Yes, that it a known issue. Our current stylesheets (both the DocBook-XSL
Robert Connolly wrote:
> GDB doesn't build, or doesn't work?
For me it does build, but fails like this:
$ cat >>gdb-test.c < search starts here:
/usr/local/include
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/include
/usr/include
End of search list.
GNU C version 4.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
co
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:54:13PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > > Is there something I should have done to transition from a 4.4
> > > installation which used to work? I've built sgml-common and
> > > docbook-4.5 per blfs
scene two:
ĸen: Eek! Poisoned by a surfeit of docbooks! (Simulates a viol
On 3/23/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/23/07 17:03 CST:
>
> > I'm applying this patch now, but I just wanted to touch on the Fedora
> > thing quickly. Their headers are now generated as a separate -headers
> > package for kernel. This is what i
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/23/07 17:03 CST:
> I'm applying this patch now, but I just wanted to touch on the Fedora
> thing quickly. Their headers are now generated as a separate -headers
> package for kernel. This is what it says in the spec file:
Just out of curiosity, why is this ne
On 3/2/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 02 March 2007 22:50, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the info, Arden. That's good enough for me to ensure that
> > > the scsi headers only get installed by glibc. Patc
Currently in LFS, there's a single entity &blfs-root; that points to
www.lfs.org/blfs/. However, there are a few places in the book that
contain specific links to BLFS pages: db, inetutils and shadow
offhand. These end up hardcoding the rest of the path link. Something
like:
There are two things
GDB doesn't build, or doesn't work?
Robert
On Friday March 23 2007 03:11, Rogelio Serrano wrote:
> Whats the best debugging strategy for an PIE and ET_DYN system?
>
> i cant get gdb to work. im being forced to add self test code in all
> programs that crash. making them all verbose is not an opti
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
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.
No comments, so I'm applying these.
--
Dan
--
http://
24 matches
Mail list logo
