Walter Webb wrote:
> Why aim BLFS at the latest LFS? First let the actively maintained
> packages get updated with the latest GCC and now GLibc. Other build
> tools have also broken existing packages. If I were more paranoid
> (perhaps I should be), I would think M$ was behind the incremental
>
Sorry. Previous post should have been to blfs-dev
Walter Webb
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Why aim BLFS at the latest LFS? First let the actively maintained
packages get updated with the latest GCC and now GLibc. Other build
tools have also broken existing packages. If I were more paranoid
(perhaps I should be), I would think M$ was behind the incremental
changes to the C and especial
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Tobias Gasser wrote:
> t-get_d fails here
>
> the first 9 test run fine
> then 1 of 30 fail
> no more tests are run, maybe more tests are broken
>
If you want to run all of the tests regardless of the error, try
adding -k to the make command. That should get make
