> Sorry for the repeat, folks. I sent this the first time in an HTML
> message, and evidently it took five days to get through the review
> process. After two days, I resent it in plaintext, and that's what
> spurred the conversation.
I only go through lfs-dev's pending moderation list abo
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 07/14/07 12:52 CST:
> It's their stable branch which contains many backported bug fixes and
> they're not producing any more releases. Is it better to use a known
> buggy glibc-2.5? If glibc-2.5.1 was imminent, I'd say wait, but recent
> history would suggest it'
On 7/14/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 07/14/07 10:34 CST:
>
> > I think most of the issues brought up in this thread have been
> > addressed. I'd like to see if glibc-2.5.1 will happen, but we can
> > certainly just use the latest branch_update p
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 07/14/07 10:34 CST:
> I think most of the issues brought up in this thread have been
> addressed. I'd like to see if glibc-2.5.1 will happen, but we can
> certainly just use the latest branch_update patch.
Just out of curiosity, why are we continually updating t
Sorry for the repeat, folks. I sent this the first time in an HTML
message, and evidently it took five days to get through the review
process. After two days, I resent it in plaintext, and that's what
spurred the conversation.
Please ignore.
- Jon
On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Jon Full
Gentlemen,
Forgive a novice to this list. I couldn't find any mention of this,
so if it's already been talked about, I'm sorry.
Step 5.7 of the recent development book shows this step currently to
generate the specs file:
gcc -dumpspecs | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]/lib/ld-linux.so.2@/tools&@g
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Safer linux-headers install
> So, I thought about this a little and decided to just use the hammer
> approach of INSTALL_HDR_PATH=dest, cp d
On 7/11/07, Luca/Gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Unless it's going to be accepted upstream, then I'm not really
> > interested in adding a patch here which takes one extra command to
> > workaround. Which, now that I look again, makes this much eas
On 6/8/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I think it's about time we start pushing out a 6.3 release. What
> do you guys think? Here are the outstanding issues I can think of.
Matthew, ping? Any thoughts on this?
I think most of the issues brought up in this thread have been
addre
El Viernes, 13 de Julio de 2007 18:18, Ivan Kabaivanov escribió:
> actually there's a notice just before the command you've quoted. This
> is what I'm referring to:
>
>
> If working on a platform where the name of the dynamic linker is
> something other than ld-linux.so.2, replace ld-linux.so.2
El Sábado, 14 de Julio de 2007 01:26, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> I would actually really like to add x86_64 (non-multilib to start)
> support to LFS and BLFS. It's becoming increasingly uncommon to even
> be able to purchase a non-64bit processor at this point. We can
> basically copy what Greg's
11 matches
Mail list logo
