On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:32:27 -0400 Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> else. I can only guess that users don't really see it as a "deviation"
> because it is mentioned in the book as being "specifically for LFS".
I think you guess wrong here. Call me cynical (I am :-) but I think people
"fo
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:51:29 -0400 Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The hint itself could also use a more emphatic
> warning that it should only be used by advanced LFS builders who have
> already built numerous LFS systems and know exactly how the whole build
> process works.
Whether
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:47:09 -0400 Bryan Kadzban
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > Hopefully, somebody has test results ?
>
> I think this is a known issue when using package users, but with bash,
> not glibc. The bash testsuite fails a couple tests because the current
> TTY is
Forget it. I completely overlooked that the list_package functionality
that is broken by the bash bug requires man, which is not available until
after bash is rebuilt. So while applying the patch in chapter 5 would fix
the swarm of error messages, it would not actually enable the
functionality. Sor
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:46:47 -0700 Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then it should be included in the hint and not book.
People will miss it. The hint doesn't require any changes to the chapter 5
build instructions so far and people who have used it before won't notice
the change.
What's
I'd like to suggest that the bash patch be applied in chapter 5, too.
Without the patch bash is pretty broken, e.g.
echo "$(echo $';foo')"
bash: foo: command not found
whereas the correct output would be
;foo
This bug breaks the list_package script from the more_control_helpers
package, thereby
