On 08/29/2012 12:58 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>> On 08/29/2012 12:10 AM, Armin K. wrote:
>>> Just change
>>>
>>> build/%o: %c
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> build/%o: %c common
>>>
>>> Just to be 100% sure that build directory exists before starting the
>>> build.
>>>
>>
>> Also, consider attach
Armin K. wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 12:10 AM, Armin K. wrote:
>> Just change
>>
>> build/%o: %c
>>
>> to
>>
>> build/%o: %c common
>>
>> Just to be 100% sure that build directory exists before starting the
>> build.
>>
>
> Also, consider attached patch to avoid error like this one with patched
> make
>
On 08/28/2012 06:39 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> I am building LFS-7.0 but this may also be true of the latest LFS
>>
>> I have found that mountpoint and its man page is in util-linux and
>> sysvinit packages.
>> I know that the way LFS insta
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> I am building LFS-7.0 but this may also be true of the latest LFS
>
> I have found that mountpoint and its man page is in util-linux and
> sysvinit packages.
> I know that the way LFS installs packages the sysvinit package would
> over
On 08/28/2012 06:30 PM, Armin K. wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 12:28 AM, Baho Utot wrote:
>> I am building LFS-7.0 but this may also be true of the latest LFS
>>
>> I have found that mountpoint and its man page is in util-linux and
>> sysvinit packages.
>> I know that the way LFS installs packages the sys
On 08/29/2012 12:28 AM, Baho Utot wrote:
> I am building LFS-7.0 but this may also be true of the latest LFS
>
> I have found that mountpoint and its man page is in util-linux and
> sysvinit packages.
> I know that the way LFS installs packages the sysvinit package would
> over write the util-linux
I am building LFS-7.0 but this may also be true of the latest LFS
I have found that mountpoint and its man page is in util-linux and
sysvinit packages.
I know that the way LFS installs packages the sysvinit package would
over write the util-linux but.
Which should really be kept?
--
http:
On 08/29/2012 12:10 AM, Armin K. wrote:
Just change
build/%o: %c
to
build/%o: %c common
Just to be 100% sure that build directory exists before starting the build.
Also, consider attached patch to avoid error like this one with patched make
LINK build/udevadm
gcc: error: build/udev-local.
On 08/28/2012 06:05 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> I have this enabled in this
>>--with-db=gdbm
>>
>> maybe add it to this package, since gdbm is used in the base system?
> It's the default:
>
> checking gdbm.h usability... yes
> checking gdbm.h presence... yes
> checking
Just change
build/%o: %c
to
build/%o: %c common
Just to be 100% sure that build directory exists before starting the build.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Baho Utot wrote:
> I have this enabled in this
> --with-db=gdbm
>
> maybe add it to this package, since gdbm is used in the base system?
It's the default:
checking gdbm.h usability... yes
checking gdbm.h presence... yes
checking for gdbm.h... yes
checking for gdbm_fetch in -lgdbm... yes
I have this enabled in this
--with-db=gdbm
maybe add it to this package, since gdbm is used in the base system?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 08/28/2012 05:26 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/28/2012 04:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/28/2012 01:08 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/28/2012 12:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/28/2012 1
Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 04:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2012 01:08 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 12:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> If gentoo succee
On 08/28/2012 04:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/28/2012 01:08 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/28/2012 12:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> If gentoo succeeds then you have "just ano
Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 01:08 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2012 12:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If gentoo succeeds then you have "just another package"
> configure;make;make install ;)
On 08/28/2012 01:08 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/28/2012 12:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
If gentoo succeeds then you have "just another package"
configure;make;make install ;)
>>> I've always thought t
There is a new patch to fix the test-installation.pl failure:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6616
This doesn't need to be in 7.2 but we can add it to svn after 7.2 is
released.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratc
Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 12:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> If gentoo succeeds then you have "just another package"
>>> configure;make;make install ;)
>> I've always thought that configure (autotools) is overkill for linux
>>
On 08/28/2012 12:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> If gentoo succeeds then you have "just another package"
>> configure;make;make install ;)
> I've always thought that configure (autotools) is overkill for linux
> only packages, The kerne
Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If gentoo succeeds then you have "just another package"
> configure;make;make install ;)
I've always thought that configure (autotools) is overkill for linux
only packages, The kernel doesn't use it. Why should systemd/udev or
ut
On 08/28/2012 11:10 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> FYI
>>
>> It appears that Gentoo has forked udev
>>
>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7125718.html
>>
>> They want to produce a standalone udev
>>
>> Maybe you folks are interested?
> It is worth watching. Our technique of usin
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> It looks as if the path of the hurricane is going to go right over my house.
> This really sucks. I'm sure power will be out for days. Wish me luck.
I wish you could send the rain west to Texas! Take care.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs
Baho Utot wrote:
> FYI
>
> It appears that Gentoo has forked udev
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7125718.html
>
> They want to produce a standalone udev
>
> Maybe you folks are interested?
It is worth watching. Our technique of using a custom Makefile is
probably a little easier to mai
Le 28/08/2012 14:32, Baho Utot a écrit :
> FYI
>
> It appears that Gentoo has forked udev
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7125718.html
>
> They want to produce a standalone udev
>
> Maybe you folks are interested?
>
>
Good news thx
FYI
It appears that Gentoo has forked udev
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7125718.html
They want to produce a standalone udev
Maybe you folks are interested?
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of
26 matches
Mail list logo
