Nice spreadsheet. I'll probably use this once I get around to a build next
week just for the heck of it.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Kevin Lyda wrote:
> I'm building 7.4 so I made an updated SBU calculator. Feel free to
> copy for your own use.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/cc
Here's the gpm script I'm using on my box here at home. Hope this helps!
Jonathan
gpm_lsb.tar.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
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
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Are the numbers in K? I suspect so.
>
I forgot to put a size flag when I got the stats from du, so they're
in the default amounts du returns. I think that's 512 bytes, so half
kilobyte units. Half the numbers below would be in kilobytes.
Attached is the overall filesize results from stripping. Sorry about
the sloppy formatting, I used tabs by mistake. It'll look best in a
terminal. I split up the comparison of stripping results between
binaries (bin,sbin,usr/bin,usr/sbin) and libraries (lib,usr/lib). For
both I provided unstrip
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> According to the link Dan posted, http://www.technovelty.org/linux/strip.html
> (I
> don't know if anyone in the community has verified yet personally),
> --strip-all is the
> one to worry about. --strip-unneeded will do the right thing for static libs.
> So the
> word
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Well, --strip-unneeded doesn't, but --strip-all on libraries does
> because I think using that would basically destroy static libraries. The
> chance of a user using a wildcard with that is reasonably high.
>
> Do we have a specific amount o
ha, my computer just completely freaked out because I forgot to add
/run to the new fstab by mistake. I transitioned from my old system
fstab and skimmed over the book fstab not realizing there was
something new to add.
Nice work on the new bootscripts though, Bruce. It still managed to
pull its
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The reference to hdparm in the descriptive paragraph is already a link
> to the BLFS hdparm page.
>
Wow, so it is. I can't believe I completely missed that. My bad!
> However, you probably want to run it from the host system when creating
>
Near the end of the chapter, the book recommends users of the ext3
filesystem to use hdparm to test if a disk is able to accept the
barrier=1 mount feature.
This is a good suggestion, but it doesn't say anything about hdparm
beyond that. The current instructions as written imply that the user
alr
Small bug due to new kernels (since 2.6.39.1) where the m4 'make
check' has a test failure in test-readlink. Apparently the newer
kernels are returning EINVAL when readlink() is called with a null
string "". The previous behavior was returning ENOENT.
According to the second link below, the next
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The old way worked OK, but just issued some warnings. Remember that the
> builds in Chapter 6 *are* using the new gcc and binutils that you built
> in Chapter 5.
>
This is true. The difference appears to be about 20 bytes on the file
binary
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> There are multiple ways of solving a problem. What new problem does
> your suggestion solve?
>
> -- Bruce
Well most of it is just a personal intent of building as many binaries
as possible with the new (and fully tested) gcc. Since file
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Changelog, 2011-04-18.
>
> -- Bruce
Thanks for the reference Bruce, I completely missed it.
From the changelog then:
> [bdubbs] - In Chapter 6, move File to before binutils to prevent some
> configure warnings.
I was curious about these
Hey guys,
I was just wondering if there was a special reason as to why file gets
built before gcc now in 7.0. I tried to do a search to see if it was
discussed but I could not turn up anything.
Jonathan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.or
While I was packaging up stuff for backup, I noticed that the two new
packages to the system (xz and check) both put some documentation
during Chapter 5 into /tools/share/doc. It remains after '5.34.
Stripping' is completed. The final command that removes
documentation:
rm -rf /tools/{,share
In chapter 6.6. Creating Essential Files and Symlinks, I missed a
simple command:
ln -sv /tools/lib/libstdc++.so{,.6} /usr/lib
Sorry for the noise. /facepalm
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above informati
Hey lfs-dev members,
I'm in the process of building a new system. I've already got my
toolchain up and running and making my way through the system gcc.
I was going over the installed libraries. I'm not sure what inspired
me to check out the libtool control files, but I noticed something
peculi
Hello again everyone,
I'm experimenting with the latest iproute2 in my builds. I just found
out that rc7 allows netmask (x.x.x.x style) notation unlike the
current stable. It accepts it in the same way that it accepts PREFIX
from the bootscripts so technically nothing needs to be changed to
supp
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Jonathan Oksman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quoting myself from earlier (removing network specific notes):
> > The book will be using 'su - lfs' to switch to the user lfs when logged in
> as root. This
> > process does n
> Quoting myself from earlier (removing network specific notes):
> The book will be using 'su - lfs' to switch to the user lfs when logged in as
> root. This
> process does not require you to give the user lfs a password.
> If you want to allow regular system access to lfs (such as login, ssh, et
Interesting results, I'm glad you did this Alexander. It's very
interesting to see how what everyone thinks is important balanced
against one another.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "I rebuild often" and "I use the scripting feature of the
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cut off part of your original message that I wished I hadn't. If, at
> the time of building glibc, /bin/sh points to dash, then configure
> will search for a bash program and set the variable BASH to that
> location. S
On 3/4/08, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has been fixed upstream to use a better search for the bash
> interpreter that won't use the BASH variable, which is set by the
> shell. I don't recall when this went in, but the sed might not be
> needed anymore with glibc-2.7.
That's
Thanks for the wonderful answers Alexander and Bryan! I'll hang onto
the RPM analysis and grab that package users hint for reference the
next time I decide to start my attempts with this test over again.
Jonathan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfroms
Hey everyone,
A few years back on an older machine I was performing an experiment
that unfortunately was devoured by the big /dev/null in the sky. This
was due to the untimely demise of the hard drive, processor and
motherboard as the power supply basically blew up.
Anywho, the test was to find
Hey mundoalem,
> "4.3. Adding the LFS User"
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter04/addinguser.html
>
> is lacking of notes on security issues about the creation
> of the "lfs" user and "lfs" group. I know the book just can't
> cover every aspect of security problems and e
Note: [X] is "yes, yes I do" while [~] is "depends on the system, but
mostly no".
[ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
[~] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package upd
it's not broken at all, it's just my lazy cpu.
Jonathan
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jonathan Oksman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey everyone, it's been a while!
> *snip my own clutter*
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linux
Hey everyone, it's been a while!
I'm going to get my urge to talk off-topic out right now so I don't
litter the point of this message. I've been keeping up with the
mailing lists and I just wanted to say that all of the ideas and
suggestions I've read recently about the direction of LFS and BLFS
On 5/27/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah, you're right. LFS used to create /opt/{bin,lib,include,...} for
> you. But not anymore.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1/chapter06/creatingdirs.html
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/creating
Hello BLFS Development!
It's been a while since my first post here, so I figured I would add
some of my observations since 6.2 has been released. I'll only be
discussing the section "The Bash Shell Startup Files" today, since it
is still fresh in my mind from my most recent build.
First, a quick
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Thanks for reporting the problem. It would also be nice if you could
> create a ticket so we don't forget this. This happens on the BLFS
> wiki, and you'd need an account to create a ticket.
>
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/
Sure, I can do that. I haven't really
Good afternoon blfs-dev mailing list members!
This is my first actual post here, but I've been reading for quite
some time. I've been using LFS since book 3 for some kind of
relativity (not that it should indicate anything, really).
Anyway, every now and then when I do a build I try out dhclien
34 matches
Mail list logo
