Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report

On 5/31/12, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:05:19 +0100 > Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you >> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all >> the way, but I thi

Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:58:08 +0100 > Ken Moffat wrote: > >>  Actually, for some of us they *are* scary.  I thought I was making >> some progress (persuaded autoreconf to complete without errors using >> the attached -A.patch), but then confi

Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 5/28/12 2:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> The problem is that none of these libraries are used for udev.  On a >> recent blfs system, where the systemd dependent libraries are installed, >> I as able to build and looked at the executables a

Re: pkg-config tests

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Doing some debugging, I'm making some progress.  I made some debug >> printouts and in the first case got: >> >>    required_pkgconfig_version 999.999 >> >> but in the second >> >>    required_pkgconfig_version a=b >> >>

Re: Stripping in Chapter 6

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > There appears to be a somewhat bogus statement in section 6.63 > "Stripping Again". It says there: > "If disk space is very tight, the --strip-all option can be used on > the binaries in /{,usr/}{bin,sbin} to gain several more megabytes. Do

Re: links in Matt's emails

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:53 AM, akhiezer wrote: > Matt, > > For a long time now, links in your posts often include the full-stop > (aka 'period') in the linked text - see e.g. the links in your post: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-book/2011-August/026906.html > > When one clicks on

Re: perl-5.14.1

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Nathan Coulson wrote: > >> silly question, but what was the reason for only installing part of >> perl?  I know we don't need it, but we rarely go out of our way to >> just install what we need in chapter 5's packages. > > Well, it's an interes

Re: svn bootscripts

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: >> On 05/30/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> In the latest svn, the bootscripts are lfs-bootscripts-20110424. >>> >>> I get an error:  make[1]: /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd: Command not found >>> >>> This was identified a we

Re: Using the LSB Bootscripts

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 5/10/11 8:25 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: >>       * Most important, pull as much as possible of the items below from >> LightCube OS's files to ease merging and keep the diffs to a minimum so >> that they are easily shared across distributions.

Re: Menu configuration

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote: > Hey, > Maybe a little off-topic. :-s > > Can I use the c code from the menu/ folder in jhalfs in my own project > to make a similar configuration menu? > > Are there some extra documantation to this ncurses based menu-system? I'm pretty sure

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> On 03/14/2011 12:03 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote: >> > >> > >> >On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:45 PM, DJ Lucas > >> wrote: >> > >> >    On 03/13/2011 11:39 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: >

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>> * LSB Compliance - For LFS we are nearly there anyway. >>> >>  So, since you have raised this, what do you think needs to be done >> that is a major change ?  More to the point, should we really care ? >> I don't have any interest in lettin

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Robert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 16:45, Ken Moffat wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> >>> * Dynamic boot script - No more static list of links, this kind of ties >>> into LSB Bootscripts, but there are other options. >

Re: Xorg plans (Was: Re: problem with groff 1.21)

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: > On 01/12/2011 05:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: >>  I've no idea where BLFS is going in the move to 7.6 - my (old) >> radeons work well in everything except mesa-demos, but then I no >> longer build a lot of the old things (many of the 'apps' still >> l

Re: ntp init script

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 8/23/10 6:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> What if the ntp server provided is down like in the 2nd entry above? > > Or (for who knows what reason) outgoing ICMP packets are blocked where > you have no control? > >> This problem is not easily

Re: Bootscript future

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 8/11/10 12:40 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: >> Actually, for LSB compliance, the 'distribution supplied boot scripts' >> need not use /lib/lsb/init-functions at all.  All that is required is >> that the scripts provide the LSB header information,

Re: ssl certs - not found by epiphany-2.30

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > (yeah, I know the book is still using gnome-2.28).  In openssl we put > the certs in > /etc/ssl/ca-bundle.crt.  I haven't yet identified what else is using > these, but epiphany is looking for >  /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt and > /etc/ssl/c

Re: the issue of environment value $PS1 set under Ubuntu 10.04

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:40 AM, littlebat wrote: > This issue was posted onto lfs-support mailing list yesterday (see: > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2010-June/038814.html ), > unluckly I disabled the mail delivery of LFS mailing list some days ago, so I > can't continue di

Re: [spammer]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > srinivas Eranti wrote: >> LinkedIn > > This user has been block from the list. That might be a little hasty. When you sign up for LinkedIn, it tries really hard to send invitations to everyone in your contacts. He may have done this inadverte

Re: Radeon DRM

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On 05/03/10 09:38, Duncan Baynes wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Just built a 64bit lfs 6.6, everything went smoothly, excellent work as >> always! >> >> I've been playing around with the 2.6.33 kernel including the new radeon >> driver. >> >> The resu

Re: Backporting Nouveau to the 2.6.32.* kernel

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On 21/02/10 20:57, Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote: >> I don't think this can be done for the current LFS release that will ship >> with 2.6.32. The Book already says that the latest available 2.6.32.x >> should be used. The backported patch

Re: Linux Standards Base

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Couldn't find install_initd > > See bootscripts/contrib/lsb-v3 in the book repository for this one. > Personally, since I never use this interface (since symlinks don't > confuse me :-P ), I don't want it, but... > >

Re: Linux Standards Base

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I've been looking at LSB and in running a couple of basic checks find that we > have some missing libraries and programs in LFS/BLFS to get to compliance.   > The > discussion below is only a start.  There may be more needed after I get their >

Re: Coreutils i18n patch prevents dash from building

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:13:38 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Matthew >> Burgess wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Following a thread on blfs-support[0], it looks like the i18

Re: Coreutils i18n patch prevents dash from building

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi, > > Following a thread on blfs-support[0], it looks like the i18n > patch for Coreutils causes a problem during compilation of > Dash in BLFS.  The attached builtins file produces the following > output when we compile Coreutils with the

Re: 3 concurrent instances of udevd

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi, > > On a newly built LFS-6.5-RC1 (with file-5.03 & Linux-2.6.30.2) > I see 3 instances of `/sbin/udevd --daemon' running at the same time. > > Process 498, parent 1 > Process 543, parent 498 > Process 544, parent 498 > > Is this what 'NE

Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>> Using 2.6.18 appears to potentially affect binaries built against kernels >>> older >>> than that and run on a LFS-6.5

Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Bryan Kadzban >> wrote: >>> Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> --enable-kernel=VERSION compile for compatibility with kernel not older >>>> th

Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> --enable-kernel=VERSION compile for compatibility with kernel not older than >>    VERSION > > Yes: abort any program at startup if the current kernel version is less > than VERSION, and also remove any workarounds incl

Re: zdiff problem

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I'm trying to address ticket #2315 that says zdiff doesn't work.  I confirmed > this by creating two files with a one line difference and compressing them: > > gzip file1 > gzip file2 > > But 'zdiff file1.gz file2.gz' gives no output.  Older ve

The time has come

Hi everyone, I'm sure those of you that are actively involved in LFS have noticed that my participation has been non-existent for quite some time now. So, this should probably not shock anyone, but I think it's time that I step away from my duties as an editor for LFS and BLFS. I still enjoy read

Re: coreutils instructions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Dan Nicholson wrote: >>> >>>> A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility, and >>>>

Re: coreutils instructions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility, >> and I think DJ has been maintaining that goal. I think it's a nice >> (and obtainable) goal to target since

Re: coreutils instructions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > > Given that LFS only installs bash, does any of this matter? :) A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility, and I think DJ has been maintaining that goal. I think it's a nice (and obtainable) goal to target since

Re: no libidn/ in glibc-2.9

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:46:16 +0100 (MET), Alexander Kozlov > wrote: >> >> You are right, libidn is not mentioned in the book, my fault. >> There is libidn/ directory in the snapshot source tree which is >> absent in glibc-2.9 release. Is

Re: Adapting LFS SVN for multilib

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Jim Gifford wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> How is it hearsay? Plenty of people (Greg, myself, Jeremy, Manuel, >> Matthew, etc.) here have used this analysis to identify issues in the >> build. The current ordering of the packages in LFS was

Re: Adapting LFS SVN for multilib

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Jim Gifford wrote: > Greg Schafer wrote: >> Jim Gifford wrote: >> >> >>> Again Greg provide us more information about the ICA, it seems to be >>> your own creation? >>> >> >> 1. Read t

Re: expat 2.0.1 patch

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dan Moore wrote: > Installation of expat on BLFS 6.3/SVN doesn't include a expat.pc file for > pkgconfig. > As a result, some downstream installs think that expat is missing from the > system. > > This patch (tested on expat-2.0.1) corrects this issue. > (The ba

Re: CLFS Bashing - Fork?? When??

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Jim Gifford wrote: > > We are not a fork, never have been. How is it _not_ a fork? CLFS has different goals, a different structure, runs on its own servers and contributes nothing (until 2 days ago) back to its supposed parent project, LFS. I see no other way to

Re: CLFS antics

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Greg Schafer wrote: > > If the LFS project had any kind of leadership with any kind of backbone, > there'd be serious consequences for this kind of divisive behavior. While I agree with your sentiments about Cross LFS creating a native book, what could the LFS le

Re: Freeglut requires GL/gl*.h

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi all. > > I'm running through an Xorg-7.4 build, but have hit a problem. Firstly, > there's > a slight inconsistency: > > The Xorg Apps page says that MesaGlut is recommended. But, visiting the > MesaGlut > page suggests that FreeGlut

Re: Aiming for 7.0

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:07:25 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Anything else? > > Ticket #2284 - radical plan would be to just drop udev-config completely, > then any reported issues should be passed

Re: xorg-server and pixman

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I know there has been a lot of discussion on Xorg lately, so sorry if > this is bringing up a known issue, but xorg-server also appears to > require pixman now. The instructions in BLFS svn break for me at > xo

Re: xkeyboard-config and intltool

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I see on the xkeyboard-config page that intltool is listed as an > optional dependency, but if I try building the current instructions as > is without intltool, I get the following configure error: > > checking for

Re: perl-5.10.0

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm puzzling over two tickets concerning perl: 2071 and 2227 > > It looks like 2071 says that we need to add -Dvendorprefix=/usr to the > configuration process, but configure.gnu doesn't support it. > > Dan mentions that he

Re: ICA/Farce

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Gilles Espinasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Instead to gunzip all .gz files, would it not better to submit patches that > add > -n when gzip run so the files in use will really be the same? > I should say I have made some patches like that but have not reported

Re: ICA/Farce

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:59 AM, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I meant to say was that I, for one, would be grateful for any > additional documentation of the subject. It's pretty straightforward, although I might butcher some of the terminology. The main goal is to see if the

Re: ICA/Farce

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've never looked at jhalfs but I understand it implements my ICA > algorithms. My own scripts have been getting exceptionally clean > results lately now that the randomness in GCC builds has apparently gone > as of GCC 4.

Re: Xorg-7.4

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Nathan Coulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > oh, btw pre Xorg 7.4, there was the dri2 stuff. That was removed > before releasing Xorg 7.4. Mesa 3d 7.1 used dri2, while Mesa 7.2 had > that removed. The dri2 stuff was dependent on the TTM memory manager, which is

Re: Xorg-7.4

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > xf86-video-intel is probably a big problem. It fails specifically > because of changes in libdrm. Hopefully 2.4.3 is out soon. I haven't > investigated the others because I do not even know what they are. Ah, you're tread

Re: Teminal issues in -dev

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The real issue is that the --bind mount of /dev is unmounted as are > /proc and /sys. (BTW, this issue would also affect any attempt to use > the grub installed in chroot, since that needs the devices corresponding > to

Re: Teminal issues in -dev

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After jhalfs completed, I followed the instructions to chroot and set the root > passwd. I used: > > /usr/sbin/chroot "$LFS" /usr/bin/env -i \ > HOME=/root TERM=linux PS1='\u:\w\$ ' \ > PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/

Re: glibc-2.8-20080929 build fails in Chapter 5

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --disable-libssp in GCC pass1 is best. Last time I looked at the test in > gcc/configure, it checks "/usr/include/features.h" for the Glibc version. So > you will probably need --disable-libssp in GCC pass2 too, becaus

Re: Udev Rules

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > >> Sorry...already reopened as I didn't see Bruce's comment about closing >> it. Closed it again. Well anyway, Dan posted a link to the >> conversation upstream. >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linu

Re: Chapter 6 Coreutils installation

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:46 CST: > >> Usually the reason is because the path to the tools gets built into >> another script/program. In the dependencies appendix, it says t

Re: Chapter 6 Coreutils installation

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Connolly wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:27 CST: > >> There may not be a technical reason for installing Coreutils early, just that >> it's one of the most heavily used packages. > > I know there was much work put

Re: iana-etc with STRIP=yes

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> $ getent services barf >> $ echo $? >> 2 > > You mean you don't have the barf service on your system? I thought that > was pretty standard... :) &quo

Re: iana-etc with STRIP=yes

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Gilles Espinasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Worst case for the search is with a protocol that is not in the file. > I don't know what happen when resolution fail. Any idea? It returns an error and stops? I can't imagine what else it could do if it didn't know ab

Re: iana-etc with STRIP=yes

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr. wrote: >> Not a major issue, but a recent thread shows using the make STRIP=yes on >> iana-etc to cut out comments and accelerate the port search on port >> resolution. In the new LSF does anyone

Re: GMP and MPFR

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Philipp Christian Loewner wrote: >> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate >> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail >> to locate these programs in the /tools direc

Re: LFS 64bit - thoughts

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:51PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> I can't really add a lot here as I haven't tried it yet. I think >> pure-64 is ideal, but from what little I've looked into it, that is just >> not possible.yet,

Re: LFS 64bit - thoughts

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:44 PM, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > From what I've seen of it, I guess there is no concept of > {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 or /usr/include64 like there is for the lib dirs (or > the alternate). I mean a total separation of the system, side by side > would be ideal IMO.

[ANNOUNCE] initd-tools 0.1.2

f optional dependencies Dan Nicholson (1): Post-release version bump And the release. http://www.dwcab.com/downloads/initd-tools/initd-tools-0.1.2.tar.gz MD5: 292d20f5ba467202cae7691bd62915f3 initd-tools-0.1.2.tar.gz Let me know if you find any issues. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.o

Re: DJ's gcc-4.3.1 book

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:31 AM, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a progress report. Nothing much to say though, it seems solid as > a rock. I've been running Apache/PHP/MySQL/Joomla on it all week - > zero-issues. > > Today I built Xorg7-almost7.4 using the very latest stuff that

initd-tools-0.1.1

Hi, This is the initial announcement for the initd-tools project. It aims to implement the install_initd and remove_initd programs described in the LSB 3.2: http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/initsrcinstrm.html The implementation aims for a SysV init

Re: cp foo{,.bak} not always supported

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/6/1, Gilles Espinasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> cp configure{,.bak} >> cp: missing destination file operand after `configure{,.bak}' >> Try `cp --help' for more information. > > This simply can't happen if the us

Re: Moving 'setclock' to earlier in the boot sequence

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it's always the right thing to get the kernel file systems >> mounted, modules loaded and devices created as soon as possible. I >> don't believe the cleanfs issue is important enough to merit wedging >> the setc

Re: Moving 'setclock' to earlier in the boot sequence

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Nathan Coulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Gerard Beekmans > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please see http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2160 >> >> The ticket is about a potential issue with bootscripts and from it came >>

Re: RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gerard Beekmans wrote: >>> for any bog standard autotooled package: >>> >>> %configure >>> >>> Looks simple enough: it runs ./configure for you. However, there's a >> >> So to summarize simply using the %configure macro won't

Re: RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gerard Beekmans wrote: >> So to summarize simply using the %configure macro won't run it like we'd >> want the configure script to be run. Yeah. %configure would do a lot more than ./configure. Not that that's a ba

Re: RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan, you have done a lot of work with RPM spec files for LFS. Is there > anything you wish to add to what Alexander said back then and your own > reply to it? Alexander may have said this, but one thing to keep in mind

Re: LFS Roadmap (Was: Re: As promised: LFS compilation summary)

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that the prevailing attitude here is rather anti GRUB2. Mostly > because development on it seems to focus on items perceived as useless > and bloat for a boot loader. I haven't piped in on this at all, but I'd j

Re: Revisiting ideas

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > I agree that there are major advantages to splitting the libraries out > > of the package, but why can't you just update the whole openssl > > package to

Re: Revisiting ideas

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Hello, > > > > So I finally got a free evening and the energy to sit down and get > > conceptual. This is the result: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/ > > > > Be

Re: Revisiting ideas

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > So I finally got a free evening and the energy to sit down and get > conceptual. This is the result: > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/ That's awesome! My only concern with the multiple pat

Re: LFS - DESTDIR Style (minor update)

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Randy McMurchy wrote: > > Cc: to BLFS-Dev > > > > Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 03/31/08 10:44 CST: > >> Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>> The implication of going to DESTDIR for LFS would imply doing the s

Re: asm/page.h

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:09:10PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > I removed the line where it includes the header and Perl built > > successfully and all tests passed. This is also what Gentoo does: > > https://bug

Re: asm/page.h

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Running through a build here (with a couple of package updates) and ran > across an error when running 'make test' for chapter 6 perl. Essentially > amounts to a 'No such file' error for asm/page.h. > > Tracking it

Re: r8518 - in trunk/BOOK: . chapter01 prologue

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:49 PM, J. Greenlees > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> > >> > b

Re: r8518 - in trunk/BOOK: . chapter01 prologue

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Sukucorp Sukucorp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Randy echoed my thoughts in a much better manner. We should not check > > > for something if the

Re: r8518 - in trunk/BOOK: . chapter01 prologue

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:49 PM, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > bash - Not needed for actual building, but glibc's ldd and tzselect > > need either bash or ksh to work. The values will be substituted at > > configure time

Re: r8518 - in trunk/BOOK: . chapter01 prologue

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Sukucorp Sukucorp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > yacc (bison) - Definitely needed since we patch the bash parse.y file > > in Ch. 5 and yacc will

Re: r8518 - in trunk/BOOK: . chapter01 prologue

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sukucorp Sukucorp wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> + [bdubbs] - Updated host requirments to check for > >> + symbolic links from sh, awk, and yacc. > > > >

Re: Flex-2.5.34

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Nicolas FRANCOIS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > The flex version present in the SVN LFS book has some compatibility > problem with old lex. Or, to be more precise (if I understood the message > I wrote clearly), the previous versions of flex did not halt on

Re: SVN-20080403 : 5.6.1. Installation of Glibc failure

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> > You really nee

Re: SVN-20080403 : 5.6.1. Installation of Glibc failure

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:51 PM, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > >> You really need gawk, not mawk. > >> > > > > Then please add gawk and bison in Chapter 5 before bi

Re: SVN-20080403 : 5.6.1. Installation of Glibc failure

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > You really need gawk, not mawk. > > Then please add gawk and bison in Chapter 5 before binutils, to accomodate > Debian-based LiveCDs and PCLinuxOS, respectively

Re: SVN-20080403 : 5.6.1. Installation of Glibc failure

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 'mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: regular expression compile failed > > (bad class -- [], [^] or [) > /[^ > mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: syntax error at or near ] > mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line

Re: Upstream patches

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Randy McMurchy wrote: > >> Upstream is notorious for changing the patch content but not changing > >> the name. And we don't see changes. This can only be a bad thing. > >> There is nothing gained b

Re: LFS - DESTDIR Style

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, everything above is not true. First, I meant the creation > of DESTDIR/usr/share, not DESTDIR/share and more importantly, the > creation of the final /usr/share/info/dir file is done in place. > This file (

Re: SVN Linux Headers Installation

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First of all, thanks to Dan for the cluebat about how gcc bootstraps > by default now. I didn't know that. Perhaps it could be mentioned. I was thinking that if you're reading the book for the first time, then having

Re: LFS-SVN: 6.45. Man-DB-2.5.1

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 4:17 AM, George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > Posting this to the dev list as it isn't really a breakage. > > After building man-db.2.5.1 folowing the SVN version of the LFS > book, I notice that man_db.conf is being installed to /usr/etc > instead of /etc. > > Ch

Re: man_db.conf in /usr/etc

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 5:16 AM, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It looks like mandb is sticking the configuration file in the /usr > > folder. > > Without looking at man-db's configury, I'd assume that it would fix it > if we simply set --sysconfdir=/etc? If it's that simple, I

Re: SVN Chapter 5 GCC First Pass - Bootstrapping?

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I noticed in the Chapter 5 GCC First Pass instructions it goes into > detail about what bootstrapping is, but the command that follows is > only 'make'. > > I'm confused. Perhaps all that text is a left over when we

Re: Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Robert Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:53:12 Dan Nicholson wrote: > > This isn't a proper channel for an LSB discussion, but the entire > I would think the LSB Meeting would be the appropriate forum, a

Re: Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Robert Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:52:56 J. Greenlees wrote: > > > > > > Anything that should be adopted by all distros must remain > > non-controversial to truly be acceptable by all, the more specific > > the LSB gets,

Re: Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With the LSB: > Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a > functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ] > to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If ex

Re: UDev Problems

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Nathan Coulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was just looking at cd udev-config-20080217, and I noticed there > were a few things that made nonroot users not work by default. > > /dev/zero and /dev/null were 660, and until I reverted to the old lfs > rules file

Re: Poll about package management

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You seem to be striving for perfection. When I want all the bells and > whistles I run a mainstream distro. It is simply too labour intensive to > have "the lot" on a self built system. I looked at the amount of effort >

Re: Package Management - technical comparisons

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - It has a lot of legacy features that were oriented to the old > versions of autoconf (see, for example, how the %makeinstall macro > expands--BTW RedHat doesn't use this macro) Nobody uses this anymore, but it

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >