On 3/2/2014 4:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
> LFS Version 7.5.
> [snip]
I would like to say that it pleases me that the LFS community is as
active as it is, and congratulations on another release of this fine
product. LFS is as a
cybertao wrote these words on 03/12/13 22:24 CST:
> I just realised I chose the development branch without much consideration,
> when the stable version my be more appropriate. If only for the
> convenience of release cycle guidelines. I focus on making a bootable CD
> and USB image for now using
Armin K. wrote these words on 03/02/13 11:28 CST:
> Dana 2.3.2013 18:14, Pierre Labastie je napisao:
>> I do not understand why the above has been done.
>> I understand XML::Parser is a Perl module.
>> But glibc (for example) is a C library, and we do not
>> put it on the same page as GCC...
I agr
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/24/13 17:45 CST:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> For anyone who builds ada (really ? why ? :) in BLFS, I guess they
>> are going to be missing the ada info files.
>
> I did some Ada coding once (1990s), but not for production. It has
> *very* strong type checking
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 21:23 CST:
> About the only reason why is to avoid questions like "Why isn't the
> latest version of package X in the book?"
Because it came out while LFS-7.3 was in package-freeze mode. Oh wait,
we don't do package-freeze! :-)
> I look at it as simila
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 20:13 CST:
> I still am not in favor of putting this in LFS-7.3. It's so much easier
> to omit the .info build completely and, of course, there is no sense at
> all in building it in Chapter 5.
I really don't understand why texinfo-5.0 had to go into LF
Armin K. wrote these words on 01/29/13 17:49 CST:
> I'd also recommend that you add symlinks as you do for libraries (form
> -> formw, menu -> menuw, etc).
Right. Good call.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/29/13 16:57 CST:
> Can you please post
>
> $ ls destdir/usr/lib/pkgconfig/*
LOL. Though not necessary as the names of the files are in the "name"
field of each of the files I posted, here is an ls.
rml@rmlinux: ~/build/ncurses-5.9 > ls -l destdir/usr/lib/pkgco
Hi all,
I just ran into a package (VLC from BLFS) that looks for the ncurses package
by checking for pkgconfig files. VLC fails to find ncurses because there are
no .pc files installed by ncurses using the LFS instructions. In order for
ncurses to install the pkgconfig files, you must use the --en
On 12/30/2012 3:00 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 21:40 -0800, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> I would like to propose adding gptfdisk to LFS.
>>
>> I do prefer it for it's simplicity over parted, but I think BLFS would
>> be good e
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/22/12 21:05 CST:
> I think the difference between GB and gigabytes is more style than
> grammar. I'd like other opinions.
You can use either. It certainly is not grammar. It is totally interchangeable.
> In one place you change "five gigabyte" to "5 gigabyte
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/21/12 12:13 CST:
> I am proposing that we freeze LFS for 7.2 with the packages we now have
> in svn. There is one outstanding ticket to address glibc issues, but
> that does not require a package change.
>
> Util-linux may come out with a new release in the n
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/20/12 15:50 CST:
> Who ? ;-)
Oh, just some guy that search engines took me to the LFS web site when
I was building GNOME back in early 2004!
> But seriously, Welcome Back!
Thanks, Ken. I look forward to working with you again.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/20/12 17:41 CST:
> I think we've got it fixed. Mailman issue. Thanks for the test.
I'm seeing almost instantaneous response now. Thanks for fixing the
problem, Bruce.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Libr
Matt Burgess wrote these words on 08/20/12 15:04 CST:
> Pings are about right here ~300ms. That said, I was checking my email
> this morning using the web client on quantum and it saw the same delay.
>
> Odd. I'll see how things go tonight. Thanks for taking a look!
FWIW, I have been seeing in
Hi all,
Though some may remember me from my work in the LFS community, many
of you will not. So, I would like to re-introduce myself. My name is
Randy McMurchy and I have been building LFS since March of 2004. Hard
to believe more than eight years have gone by since that first build.
Though my
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/31/12 16:25 CST:
> With great sadness, I have to report the passing of Andy Benton.
I am sorry to hear this news. Though Andy and I had our differences of
opinion on some things, I always appreciated and admired the work he did
for the (B)LFS community. He will
On 1/21/2011 3:18 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> There is another problem. In the command:
>
> for FN in `find /usr/bin -type l`; do
> if [ `readlink $FN | grep "\.\./texmf"` ]; then
> ln -svf `readlink $FN | sed 's|\.\./texmf|../share/texmf|'` $FN
> fi
> done&&
> unset FN
>
> I ge
xinglp wrote these words on 01/04/11 10:49 CST:
> It seems that man-db depends on xz-utils.
>
> The configure out puts below
>
> 111 checking for pic... pic
> 112 checking for gzip... gzip
> 113 checking for compress... no
> 114 checking for bzip2... bzip2
> 115 checking for xz... xz
> 116 checki
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/01/10 14:50 CST:
> In Chapter 5, we are not doing a full bootstrap, so we add
> -fomit-frame-pointer so it will produce the same codes as if it was a
> full bootstrap.
>
> In Chapter 6, we do the same thing. I think, but I'm not sure, that
> -fomit-frame-poi
is not located where the dev book says it is:
http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-164-testfiles.tar.bz2
Would it be any different than the 163 version?
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
Hi all,
I went to build a new LFS (development version) today so that I could
begin getting BLFS ready for a release. I got bit in that my host's
kernel version (an old LFS build from 2007) was one release too short
(2.6.21.5 instead of 2.6.22.5). I've built 3 versions of LFS since this
host, but
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Just for the record, BLFS is still targetted at LFS-6.5, so build
> instructions
> should be appropriate to that version.
That should probably change now. I'm not sure any active developers
are using 6.5. I am open to suggestions, but I feel BLFS may need
to just simply targ
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I have to say that I agree. In my mind, the current site is quite
> adequate. I'm not going to be 'for' or 'against' a change, but I don't
> see the value in changing.
>
> Ken, us old guys need to stick together. :)
Count me in as one of the old guys!
--
Randy
--
http:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/30/10 18:06 CST:
>> All the servers I feel pretty good about.
>
> And not to exclude Ken, I've got Ghostscript and CUPS already updated,
> Gutenprint is already being tested against the other two. Oh, and I
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/30/10 18:06 CST:
> All the servers I feel pretty good about.
And not to exclude Ken, I've got Ghostscript and CUPS already updated,
Gutenprint is already being tested against the other two. Oh, and I
mix in Samba just to really test the inst
Robert Xu wrote these words on 03/28/10 16:38 CST:
> I'm just having the problem of getting all the emails about 6-10 hours
> late. Like now, I just got an email sent at 10:24 AM, and it's 5:38 PM now.
I also reported the same exact behavior from the mail server on
quantum to the sysadmin, but I
Sorry for the noise if it comes through, but David Jensen emailed to me
saying he hasn't received mail from these two groups in some time, and
he also sent a test mail.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Li
Hi all,
I've noticed that recently there are times (such as right now) that it
takes 3 or 4 hours for LFS mail to be delivered to my mail client.
However, that same mail hits the Gmane News server in mere moments.
Anyone have any idea what is going on with the Quantum server?
--
Randy
rmlscsi:
Chris Staub wrote these words on 03/12/10 13:09 CST:
> Hmm, then you might want to take a look at the LFS "Prerequisites" page,
> and the Less, M4, Groff, GCC, and Glibc pages in Chapter 6. Then again,
> it might be better for your sanity if you don't...
Entering late (on purpose) because it is
Hi all,
I have submitted a patch upstream to the E2fsprogs maintainers to add a
function to the libcom_err library so that it will be compatible with
Heimdal. Without the patch to E2fsprogs, Heimdal will end up adding a
new libcom_err library in /usr/lib and overwrite the .so file that points
to t
Hi all,
Is it worth maintaining the Traceroute package in BLFS when Inetutils
from LFS ships a working traceroute program? Is one better than the other?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i6
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> clark hammer wrote:
>> It would be beneficial if the community added wget to lfs. This would allow
>> lfs users to download additional software once they build their own lfs
>> system.
>
> This has been discussed before.
One thing Bruce didn't mention is that you have full FT
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> The major reason for the existence of the LSB is to support ISVs who
> want to distribute software for linux. They want to have some base to
> be able to say "here's a package that will work on your system". If
> you don't want or need to support that, the LSB is not for you
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> But we don't put *any* .so (or .a) files into /lib, because the only
>> reason for /lib is to hold libraries that are required before /usr may
>> be mounted (i.e. early bootscripts). And when you're compiling -- which
>> is the only time .so or .a fi
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/26/09 15:22 CST:
> I'm intending to push 6.5-RC2 out midweek, at which point I'll
> also declare a full feature/package freeze.
Cool. It's at that point I build a 6.5 system and start testing
BLFS packages. But until then ...
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/25/09 15:42 CST:
> If we do a -rc2, I'll update the md5sums in that version.
What do you mean "if"? We've updated multiple packages including a
toolchain package since rc1 was released. Certainly we'll release at
least one more candidate, right?
--
Randy
rml
Hi all,
I'd like to announce that Wayne Blaszczyk has accepted a position as a BLFS
Editor. Wayne has recently been sending in patches for the BLFS book to add
new packages.
Wayne will make a fine addition to the BLFS team and I encourage everyone
to welcome him as the newest addition to the edit
Tobias Gasser wrote these words on 07/21/09 16:25 CST:
> conclusion / request:
> add a paragraph in the top of the changelog telling how to use the wiki
> log/trunk to get some more details.
>
> knowing about this wiki entries makes my life a lot easier (at least
> concerning lfs ;) ). up to today
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/18/09 10:53 CST:
> I understand your concerns, but let me mention an alternative view. If we
> wait
> too long, there will be updates to several packages and the longer we wait,
> the
> more pressure to incorporate those newer packages into the 'upcoming' r
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/18/09 10:05 CST:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
> LFS Version 6.5 Release Candidate 1.
> [snip]
> It is our intention to release LFS-6.5 final within 2 weeks.
Just my opinion, but I think that is too aggressive of
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/17/09 06:35 CST:
> I'd agree that your proposal is the right thing to do. Bruce, do you mind if
> we
> squeeze this in for 6.5?
We would also have to put back the short note in the program that builds
arpd, that if you need arpd, then follow BLFS to build
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/17/09 06:24 CST:
> BDB was added ages ago when we moved to iproute2, whose arpd implementation
> links
> against BDB. Personally, I never use arpd, but I guess it's useful for some
> network-admin types. We could drop BDB and therefore lose arpd (potentia
Hi all,
So I don't have to try and scour through the archives, can someone help
me figure out why GDBM was added to chapter 6 of the book, yet BDB was
left in as well. Do we have packages in Chapter 6 that depend on both
being installed?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version 2.16
Hi all,
I'd like to announce that Guy Dalziel has accepted a position as a BLFS
Editor. Guy has been regularly contributing to the various LFS mailing
lists as well as sending in patches for the BLFS book.
Guy will make a fine addition to the BLFS team and I encourage everyone
to welcome him as t
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 03/20/09 07:02 CST:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:35:06 +0100 (MET), Alexander Kozlov
> wrote:
>> there is no libidn/ in glibc-2.9 release, contrary to the contents
>> of Chap.6. It appears in gnu snapshots though.
>
> Could you be more specific please? I can't s
Jack Stone wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> Such a big warning is already present at the bottom of 5.3 (General
>> Compilation Instructions).
>>
>> Does it really need repeating on each and every package instruction page?
>
> [snip]
>
> It just seems that people don't realise this so maybe it s
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/28/09 19:33 CST:
> While I'm not completely against putting pkg-config in LFS, we could also put
> it
> into Chapter 3 of BLFS, 'After LFS Configuration Issues'.
It wouldn't surprise me if some LFS package looks for pkg-config in the
near future. At that time,
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 02/28/09 17:00 CST:
> Just to let you know that trying to build libusb-compat early on
> in a BLFS build fails (hard fail in ./configure) if pkg-config
> isn't installed.
I'll fix this right now. This situation with pkg-config is just
going to get worse and wor
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 02/12/09 17:18 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> I realize I could keep my old logs from packages I've since removed and
>> replaced, but I'm wondering how others do it.
>>
> I didn't...hadn't even considered it when lo
Hi all,
Though this topic may be borderline off-topic for the -dev lists, they
have the most traffic, and just may be relevant.
My question is this:
How do others handle the situation where directories are created by
a package during the package install, and then other packages install
other fil
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/11/09 16:31 CST:
> Let William post to -dev. If he demonstrates that he has an emotional age
> greater than 12, we can consider restoring ticket privileges.
>
> Promises won't cut it. Only actions will be considered.
Very well put, Bruce, thank you.
It is
William Immendorf wrote these words on 02/11/09 16:37 CST:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Let William post to -dev. If he demonstrates that he has an emotional age
>> greater than 12, we can consider restoring ticket privileges.
> And I am showing a emotional age greater
William Immendorf wrote these words on 02/11/09 16:04 CST:
> THIS IS UNFAIR! WILLIAM NEEDS TO HAVE TICKET PREMITIONS!!
Why must you feel you have to shout in ALL CAPS? You'd be so much
more accepted if you just followed the decorum we've established over
the years. You continuously break the r
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/01/09 12:25 CST:
> Thanks for the tip Matt. I wasn't seeing the error on any browser so it was
> difficult to figure out. Perhaps we should just delete all accounts and ask
> everyone to re-register.
>
> The Admin page (for BLFS and LFS) shows a lot of add
Ryan Oliver wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
Hopefully, there are others like me that do not mind this
banter between Ryan and Greg. I don't look at it as arguing,
or trying to one-up each other. It is simply their way of
expressing their own ideas. I like it. And I'm learning from
it.
If you feel th
Hi all,
If anyone with privileges to Quantum could look in and see why the
Quantum server is so bogged down, I sure would appreciate it. It seems
as though it has been really, really sluggish the last few days.
Top shows that HTTP processes have the CPU running at 100%. Perhaps if
the Apache serv
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I would love to see what you and Robert C. have suggested happen.
> [snip good stuff]
> Anyway, as far as I am concerned, I would be glad to give up any commit
> privileges I have in the projects and work only from the sidelines if it
> would help remove the
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> We can call CLFS whatever we want, but by typical open source project
> standards, it is definitely a fork.
I agree, that is why I've always referenced it as a fork. And
as Dan says below, I don't consider that a bad thing. It simply
is an accurate description.
> I don't
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Can we please put aside the egos and pointing fingers and work together
> to reach the common goal?
Absolutely. More than anything, I got a chuckle this morning
reading this thread and ended up posting something that was
actually just me thinking out loud.
I apologize f
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello Everybody,
>>
>> Is there any way to get some of the archives from the mailing
>> lists? They are all error 403 right now.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think Gerard disabled the arch
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I also hope anything from what people have done towards the LFS's 7.0
> goal, that the appropriate credit is giving.
This is funny.
They copy hundreds of BLFS pages (verbatim, mind you) into
the work at http://cblfs.cross-lfs.org/index.php/Main_Page
and don't mention anywhe
Ken Moffat wrote:
> #define RELEASE "stable"
> -#define VERSION "2.8"
> +#define VERSION "2.8-20080929-LFS"
> [snip]
> Is there any interest in doing something like this ?
I like it except the -LFS. As we don't modify it one bit, why
add the LFS? It is a stock weekly tarball unmodified. I don't
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I don't know of any outstanding issues except the GMP issue with some
> combinations of hardware and CFLAGS setting. Although we recommend not using
> CFLAGS, that could be addressed with a note.
It has not even been one week since the RC1. I don't think that
is enough time
Rob Thornton wrote these words on 11/06/08 17:52 CST:
> There may be good reason for this but after building LFS for the 3rd
> time, I've come to realize there's no direct method of building BLFS
> packages with the final LFS system. No method for downloading packages
> exist if you're not build
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 16:32 CST:
> Greg Schafer 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 GC
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/26/08 14:46 CST:
> Yeah, understood. I guess I probably sounded defensive. All I meant was
> there was a decision reached about this earlier and to my knowledge none
> of the technical circumstances have changed, so you'll probably want to
> give consider
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/26/08 14:34 CST:
> Before you go changing anything, see here:
I didn't mean Bruce should actually change anything. My response was
more on the technical side in that if it *were* changed, the end
result of someone following the book would be identical to wh
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 14:28 CST:
> OK. I'll add a sentence to explain that.
Would you go ahead and assign yourself ticket #2167 as well?
( http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2167 )
--
Randy
rmlinux: [bogomips 3992.15] [GNU ld version 2.17] [gcc (GCC) 4.1.2]
[GNU C
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 14:12 CST:
> Why do we do:
>
> make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=dest headers_install
> cp -rv dest/include/* /usr/include
>
> instead of:
>
> make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/usr/include headers_install
I just asked that question a week ago! (and was answered)
Anyway, it's
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 13:54 CST:
> I have no idea. It looks like Jeremy ran the script at 0859 MST today, but I
> have no evidence that it wasn't also run at 0415.
In fact, after I looked again later, I saw in
/srv/www/www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/svn that it had not
re
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 12:47 CST:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Yeah. I forgot to bump the book version entity. I remembered around
>> 12:35 AM CDT, but I'm not sure if it was too late to bump it.
>
> 0415 MST.
So, why didn't the book get rendered last night?
>>> Also noticed on t
Hi all,
I noticed in -book that DJ made some commits yesterday, but it
doesn't appear that the book rendered last night. At least the date
of the book wasn't bumped to the day DJ's commit says it should.
Also noticed on the Quantum server that there are over 1500 svnserve
processes. Is that norma
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 10/21/08 12:39 CST:
> Done, #2257. Targetted for 6.4.
This ticket is a duplicate of #2240. I've closed #2257 and have
had #2240 assigned to me. I'll be updating the book and closing
all my tickets as soon as my current build finishes, and I've
built a few BLF
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> There is a problem, however. The script uses open() but with 3 arguments
> instead of 2. From what I've found so far, this change in syntax was
> introduced in perl-5.8.0, so the installation of Linux Headers fails if
> the host's version of perl is < 5.8.0. I'm investi
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules in
> /lib/udev/rules.d.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I say keep them in /etc.
Do we flip a coin? :-)
Actually, I lean towards /lib/udev and I believe DJ and Dan
do as well. Does this sort of make it a non-un
[ from http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2239 ]
#2239: patch-2.5.9
Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It used to be on the Gnu alpha site: http://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/
but is no longer there. The only place I can find it is:
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/p/patch/patch_2.5.
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.linux.hotplug.devel/12895
>
> Bottom line, it is still left to opinion for now. H
Hi all,
There was a ticket opened, and since closed as invalid that
some Udev rules belong in /lib/udev instead of /etc/udev.
To me, Udev rules are configuration items and belong in
/etc, but that's just my opinion.
There was a mention (not sure how valid it is) that the
Udev maintainers suggest
Trent Shea wrote:
> On Sunday 12 October 2008 14:11:49 Trent Shea wrote:
>> I wouldn't want to start altering instructions to reflect possible
>> scenarios though.
>
> Well, still... It feels odd that we would be worried about the system
> crashing at this point (ie. the last thing we are doing:)
[cc'ing to LFS-Dev]
Wolfgang Messingschlager wrote:
> I suggest before issuing within grub
> setup (hd0)
> the file /boot/grub/menu.lst should be created. This is much safer,
> because it can happen that the system crashes between overwriting the
> MBT and creating /boot/grub/menu.lst.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: dj
> Date: 2008-10-12 13:04:50 -0600 (Sun, 12 Oct 2008)
> New Revision: 8651
>
> Modified:
>trunk/BOOK/chapter01/changelog.xml
>trunk/BOOK/chapter06/iproute2.xml
> Log:
> Removed broken move in iproute2 commands.
DJ, there's much more broken than just th
Hi all,
Mostly a question for DJ, but FYI for everyone else.
I noticed in your experimental book you use an updated
version of the bootscripts. Does SVN need to be updated
as well?
I know you and Dan did some stuff for the LSB side of
things, but not sure if SVN needs to be updated. Probably
so,
Robert Connolly wrote:
> As root, I tried every 'groupmems' option, and they all work. I'm using
> shadow-4.1.2.1, glibc-2.8-20080908, binutils-2.18.50.0.9, and
> gcc-4.2.5-20080903.
I cannot reproduce the segfault. Not sure why. Strange.
One thing that needs to be reported upstream, however.
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 that sed
> must be built before e2fsprogs. I think it's mk_cmds that hardcodes
> the location of sed, but tha
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 into rearranging the build order of
the various packages so that as much as possib
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:20 CST:
> I followed the lfs updates via lfs-book. But in archives (and in my mailbox),
> revisions go from r8593 to r8595, without r8594. And when I study r8595, I
> see something happent in r8594. Is there a way to see what happent? what a
Hi all,
I don't consider this a big issue, but want to throw it out there.
I noticed when I ran the new Shadow 'groupmems' program, it segfaults.
I didn't think to much about it at the time as this program is new
to Shadow and the man page says you must create a special group and
set the program
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 10/12/08 10:59 CST:
> Because the Coreutils test suite has a lot of dependencies.
Not trying to be rude, Robert, but I don't understand what you mean.
If the test suite has lots of dependencies, then it would be *later*
in the build, right?
I'm wondering why
Hi all,
Just to satisfy my curiosity, why do we have the Coreutils
installation so far up in the build order in Chapter 6?
Is there a Coreutils binary that won't operate correctly
from /tools/bin? Perhaps the chroot command?
No big deal, just wondering if anyone knows.
--
Randy
--
http://linu
Hi all,
Looking at the build order, I'm curious as to why the Chapter 6
Sed installation is so far up in the build. It is built in
Chapter 5, and there's only a binary program installed (other
than docs and locales), so there should be no real need to build
it out of alphabetical order.
Or am I m
LFS Trac wrote:
> #2056: Consider using --disable-shared for gcc pass 1
> +---
> Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Hi all,
I'm probably off-line the rest of the night as my son is
playing in a college football game on TV and it's about to
start. I'm going to sit back, relax and watch it.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: S
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Since M4 is basically a short CMMI install at 0.2 SBU and 10M disk, I'd
> prefer
> to see it retained in Chapter 5 and moved. It may not be strictly necessary
> but
> the overhead of doing so is really negligible and the more we build using our
> own tools without relyin
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> This package does come with a test suite, however, it cannot be
>> run at this time because we do not have a C++ compiler yet.
>>
> Actually, I've never seen any discussion on this, but I believe that it
> was suggested to be more "personal" in one o
DJ Lucas wrote:
> OK?
Sounds good to me.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Hi all,
Does anyone have a little cheat sheet or some notes handy
that would help me use jhalfs for the first time. I have
a decently fast x86 machine with a spare partition that
isn't doing anything right now.
I've never used the jhalfs utility. I don't even know
where to download it from. Any h
Reece Dunn wrote:
> I asked this question on 21/11/2007 ("Linux Headers question"
> [http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-November/060618.html]),
> which likely resulted in that ticket item. I got essentially the same
> response from Thomas Trepl and Mark Rosenstand:
>
> Thomas Trep
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/06/08 10:45 CST:
>>
>>
>>> I would think that adding it to the Host Requirements page would be
>>> slightly preferable. Here's my thinking:
>>>
>>>
Hi all,
There's a minor ticket about explaining what the installation
commands in the Linux Headers installation do, and it occurred
to me that is it possible that there's a redundant step?
Here's the existing commands (with my comments for the
book inserted as well):
First ensure the source tre
1 - 100 of 1031 matches
Mail list logo
