Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> It seems to me that we should remove udev from LFS and point
>>> anyone who needs it at the systemd page in BLFS. They've shown
>>> that they're integrating udev more tightly with systemd, we
>>> should move away from it.
>> L
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> It seems to me that we should remove udev from LFS and point anyone
>> who needs it at the systemd page in BLFS. They've shown that they're
>> integrating udev more tightly with systemd, we should move away from
>> it.
>
> Let's see what they say whe
Andrew Benton wrote:
> It seems to me that we should remove udev from LFS and point anyone
> who needs it at the systemd page in BLFS. They've shown that they're
> integrating udev more tightly with systemd, we should move away from
> it.
Let's see what they say when I post the configure.ac / Mak
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:39:59 +0100 Bruce Dubbs
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The current version, Dan's version, and the 'lite' verion all
>>> fail the same test for me.
>> I get the same test failure with both pkg-config-0.26 and
>> pkg-config-lite-0.26-1. With b
Matt,
Trying a fresh build, perl 5.16.0 fails to configure.
As user lfs:
$ sh Configure -des -Dprefix=/tools
Directories to use for library searches?
[/lib/../lib64 /usr/lib/../lib64 /lib /usr/lib /tools/lib]
...
What libraries to use?
[-lnsl -lgdbm -ldb -ldl -lm -lcrypt -lutil -lc -lgdbm_c
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:34:51 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2. but then make dies at
> CC src/shared/libsystemd_units_la-install.lo
> In file included from src/shared/path-lookup.h:33:0,
> from src/shared/install.c:33:
> ./src/core/manager.h:28:23: fatal error: dbus/dbus.h: No
On 06/01/2012 01:13 PM, Armin K. wrote:
[putolin]
> Ah yes ... Some apps use those for loading modules. For example,
> cyrus-sasl is one of those, but I've patched it not to use them, but the
> .so ones directly. Among those is mpg123 which also uses .la files by
> default but they can be overwri
I've been trying to get this thing working using the attached patch.
Basically, it's some things already in upstream, plus Andy's
response to Dan's second "get-us-started" patch, with Bruce's
additions to configure.ac applied by hand because it wasn't an
incremental diff. Originally, I was using
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Dan's version also passes all checks with --with-installed-popt. There
>> is a note in BLFS that says popt-1.16 will create a failure in
>> pkg-config's make. I didn't find that in Dan's version.
>>
>> I'm going
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Dan's version also passes all checks with --with-installed-popt. There
> is a note in BLFS that says popt-1.16 will create a failure in
> pkg-config's make. I didn't find that in Dan's version.
>
> I'm going to start working on
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:39:59 +0100
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> The current version, Dan's version, and the 'lite' verion all fail the
>> same test for me.
>
> I get the same test failure with both pkg-config-0.26 and
> pkg-config-lite-0.26-1. With both of them I can make al
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:39:59 +0100
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> The current version, Dan's version, and the 'lite' verion all fail the
>> same test for me.
>
> I get the same test failure with both pkg-config-0.26 and
> pkg-config-lite-0.26-1. With both of them I can make al
Andrew Benton wrote:
>> -
>>
>> Reading the pkg-config mailing list, I don't get any feel for when the
>> next freedesktop version will be released, but am inclined to add Dan's
>> version now and then update later when a suitable freedesktop version is
>> released. The last freede
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:39:59 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The current version, Dan's version, and the 'lite' verion all fail the
> same test for me.
I get the same test failure with both pkg-config-0.26 and
pkg-config-lite-0.26-1. With both of them I can make all tests pass if
I configure them --
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:39:59 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I am of the opinion that we should re-introduce pkg-config into LFS. I
> think it would make things simplier for both LFS and BLFS.
>
> pkg-config would make building kmod, libpipeline, man-db, and
> udev/systemd all easier in LFS.
>
>
I am of the opinion that we should re-introduce pkg-config into LFS. I
think it would make things simplier for both LFS and BLFS.
pkg-config would make building kmod, libpipeline, man-db, and
udev/systemd all easier in LFS.
In addition, there are numerous packages in BLFS that mention pkg-conf
On 06/01/2012 06:59 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> That may be more recent, but Ubuntu 7.04 (32 bit) has 248 .la files and
>> Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit) has 217 .la files.
>>
> On this 32-bit netbook (where I still haven't had time to even tr
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> That may be more recent, but Ubuntu 7.04 (32 bit) has 248 .la files and
> Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit) has 217 .la files.
>
On this 32-bit netbook (where I still haven't had time to even try
building my own kernel, much less sort out the
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
> >
> > Removal process is the following: find /usr/lib /lib -name *.la -delete
> > Nothing else. I'll try 64bit system since I have 64bit capable hardware
> > now ... But I tell you, every distribution does not have a
Armin K. wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 05:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:04:59PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
>>> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
>>> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
>>> single of them on my machine and
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:05:18AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Perhaps:
>>
>> # Generated by libtool
>> # and customized by LFS
>>
> That sounds good enough.
>>> That is good enough to get past that first problem (probably better
>>> if Custom file was replaced by something t
On 06/01/2012 05:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>
>> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
>> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
>> single of them on my machine and yet everything works perfectly ... So
>> tell me, have you tr
On 06/01/2012 05:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:04:59PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
>>
>> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
>> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
>> single of them on my machine and yet everything work
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:05:18AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Perhaps:
>
> # Generated by libtool
> # and customized by LFS
>
That sounds good enough.
> > That is good enough to get past that first problem (probably better
> > if Custom file was replaced by something to clarify it's not rea
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:04:59PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
>
> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
> single of them on my machine and yet everything works perfectly ... So
> tell me, have you tried
Armin K. wrote:
> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
> single of them on my machine and yet everything works perfectly ... So
> tell me, have you tried NOT to install that file? libtool will fall
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:13:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
> func_lalib_unsafe_p ()
> {
> lalib_p=no
> if test -f "$1" && test -r "$1" && exec 5<&0 <"$1"; then
> for lalib_p_l in 1 2 3 4
> do
> read lalib_p_line
>
On 06/01/2012 04:33 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:13:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> libtool: link: `/usr/lib64/libudev.la' is not a valid libtool
>>> archive
>>
>> libtool is a (long) shell script generated with configure. I found that
>> phrase in
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:13:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > libtool: link: `/usr/lib64/libudev.la' is not a valid libtool
> > archive
>
> libtool is a (long) shell script generated with configure. I found that
> phrase in 10 different places. Can you instrument it an
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jeremy Huntwork <
jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/12 4:41 PM, James Robertson wrote:
>
> > 1. Adding PM is NOT a replacement for the books. It should also be
> > noted and clear that the purpose of this effort is not to turn (B)LFS
> > into a bi
On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:22:00 +0100
Andrew Benton wrote:
> When they merged udev and systemd they said that it'd be possible to
> install just udev without systemd but with the very first merged
> release it is impossible to install udev without all of systemd's
> dependencies...it makes me wonder
31 matches
Mail list logo
