Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>> On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
>
> Why should we care when it's a distribution issue? Every "sane" distro
>
>>> It's not a 'distribution issue': you're wrong.
>
>> It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
>> no package shi
Armin K. wrote:
> On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
Why should we care when it's a distribution issue? Every "sane" distro
>> It's not a 'distribution issue': you're wrong.
> It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
> no package ships that the former one depend
On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:22:26 +
>> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>>
>>> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:36:21 +0100
>>> From: "Armin K."
>>> To: LFS Developers Mailin
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:22:26 +
> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
> > Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:36:21 +0100
> > From: "Armin K."
> > To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 18:17:42 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc pass 1/2 instructions re mpfr/gmp/mpc.
>
> akhiezer wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:04:38 -0600
> >> From: Bruce Dubbs
> >> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> >> Subject
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:36:21 +0100
> From: "Armin K."
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
.
.
> >
> > I've just started sendmail. Actually I'm most interested in getting the
> > slackware issue settled for LFS. That's our on
On 1.3.2014 23:44, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Le 01/03/2014 22:58, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>>>
Now, I have a question. I have never been involved in development, so just
take my question as a ma
akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:04:38 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc pass 1/2 instructions re mpfr/gmp/mpc.
>>
>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>> Le 01/03/2014 23:31, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 01/
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:04:38 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc pass 1/2 instructions re mpfr/gmp/mpc.
>
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
> > Le 01/03/2014 23:31, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> >> Pierre Labastie wrote:
> >>> Le 01/03/2014 21:14, Bruce D
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 01/03/2014 23:31, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>> Le 01/03/2014 21:14, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> It sounds like we need to add a check for libgmp on the host. Perhaps
>> libmpfr and libmpc also.
> It i
Le 01/03/2014 23:46, Pierre Labastie a écrit :
> Le 01/03/2014 23:31, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>> Le 01/03/2014 21:14, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> It sounds like we need to add a check for libgmp on the host. Perhaps
>> libmpfr and libm
Le 01/03/2014 23:31, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Le 01/03/2014 21:14, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>>
> It sounds like we need to add a check for libgmp on the host. Perhaps
> libmpfr and libmpc also.
>>>
It is the .la files, which fire the i
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 01/03/2014 22:58, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>> Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>>
>>> Now, I have a question. I have never been involved in development, so just
>>> take my question as a mark of curiosity: what is the reason to expect
>
Le 01/03/2014 22:58, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>
>> Now, I have a question. I have never been involved in development, so just
>> take my question as a mark of curiosity: what is the reason to expect release
>> of LFS and BLFS to b
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 01/03/2014 21:14, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>
It sounds like we need to add a check for libgmp on the host. Perhaps
libmpfr and libmpc also.
>>
>>> It is the .la files, which fire the issue. I could reproduce the error with
>>> lfs-7.5-r
Le 01/03/2014 21:14, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>
>>> It sounds like we need to add a check for libgmp on the host. Perhaps
>>> libmpfr and libmpc also.
>
>> It is the .la files, which fire the issue. I could reproduce the error with
>> lfs-7.5-rc1 as the host, by removing li
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Now, I have a question. I have never been involved in development, so just
> take my question as a mark of curiosity: what is the reason to expect release
> of LFS and BLFS to be close in time? I would think of something like:
>
Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> It sounds like we need to add a check for libgmp on the host. Perhaps
>> libmpfr and libmpc also.
> It is the .la files, which fire the issue. I could reproduce the error with
> lfs-7.5-rc1 as the host, by removing libgmp.la.
>
> Actually, neither Debian nor Arch provid
Le 01/03/2014 18:50, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>
>> So, I eventually managed to install slackware (only packages for passing the
>> host reqs, running jhalfs, and running the slackware package management
>> system. The key point (I think) is that I haven't installed the packag
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> So, I eventually managed to install slackware (only packages for passing the
> host reqs, running jhalfs, and running the slackware package management
> system. The key point (I think) is that I haven't installed the package
> "gmp-5.0.5-x86_64-1", and that it does not pre
Le 27/02/2014 21:49, Pierre Labastie a écrit :
>
>
> Oops, sorry for bad wording. Of course, you can install gcc without the other
> libraries, but the compiler cannot compile anything: the compilation stage
> (cc1) cannot run without all three libraries. Hum, cc1 is installed in
> /usr/libexec/i4
Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Em 28-02-2014 18:23, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>>
>>> i686, nor if we should care.
>>
>> Is i686 gong to be deprecated?
>
> I don't think so. My main system is still a 686, but I don't normally
> do a full development on it.
22 matches
Mail list logo
