what is e2fsprogs ?
2011/10/6 John Stanley
> The modified e2fsprogs build looks like a nice solution to me,
> especially since the external glib dependency looks like a bit
> of a 'slippery slope' to unnecessary complexity. Thanks everyone.
> John
>
> On 10/05/2011 08:06 PM, Andrew Benton wrote
The modified e2fsprogs build looks like a nice solution to me,
especially since the external glib dependency looks like a bit
of a 'slippery slope' to unnecessary complexity. Thanks everyone.
John
On 10/05/2011 08:06 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:48:07 -0500
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:45:13 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
>> wrote:
>>> Longer term, we can remove the --type=failed invocation entirely,
>>> although maybe that's better done as part of this change?
>>
>> I'd prefer to do that in this change. As you mentio
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:48:07 -0500
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> That sounds like a nice simple approach. Does it still place its .pc
> files in /usr/lib/pkgconfig?
>
Yes, it installed /usr/lib/pkgconfig/ext2fs.pc
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfrom
On 05/10/2011 22:48, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
That sounds like a nice simple approach. Does it still place its .pc
files in /usr/lib/pkgconfig?
Hi Bruce,
Here's the complete patch I've kicked off a test build with. Your
machine may just beat mine though, if you want to verify it :-)
Regards,
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 2:03:35 -0600
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> My preferred way of handling the glib/pkg-config requirement in LFS Chapter 6
>> at the moment is to "fix" e2fsprogs so that it doesn't require pkg-config at
>> all (see
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/piper
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 2:03:35 -0600
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> My preferred way of handling the glib/pkg-config requirement in LFS Chapter 6
> at the moment is to "fix" e2fsprogs so that it doesn't require pkg-config at
> all (see
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2011-September/065
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:45:13 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
> wrote:
>> See the attached patch for what I propose we do, at least in the short
>> term, or possibly longer as well.
>>
>> It changes udev_retry to (in addition to using --type=failed) read
>> /etc/sysconfig/udev_retry
Regarding Python, yes it does, but I think only for the dbus-related
testing parts. So, if dbus is not found on the system, Python will not
be needed as I recall.
The dbus (and hence Python) issue did arise for me as I use the
base system as a 'maintenance root' for doing base package
upgrades fo
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:53:52 -0400, John Stanley
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be an easy way to turn off the
> libffi requirement, which is unfortunate, as libglib itself
> doesn't need it. On the other hand, I've been building
> lfs/blfs-like systems for several years now, and end up
> ins
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:45:13 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> See the attached patch for what I propose we do, at least in the short
> term, or possibly longer as well.
>
> It changes udev_retry to (in addition to using --type=failed) read
> /etc/sysconfig/udev_retry (name TBD, but this works for m
11 matches
Mail list logo
